'M
B &pc^^^SCO
San Prancisco
i^siw Library
INo..
Presented by
EXTRACT FROM BY-LAAVS.
Section 9. No book shall, at any time, be taken
from the Library Room to any other place than to
some court room of a Court of Record, State or Fed-
eral, in the City of San Francisco, or to the Chambers
of a Judge of such Court of Record, and then only upon
the accountable receipt tf some person entitled to the
use of the Library. Every such book so taken from
tlie Library, shall be returned on the same day, and in
default of such return the party taking the same shall
be suspended from all use and privileges of the
Library until the return of the book or full compensa-
tion is made therefor to the satisfaction of the
Trustees.
Sec. 11. No books shall have the leaves folded
down, or be marked, dog-eared, or otherwise soiled,
defaced or injured. A party violatins' >his i rovision,
shall be liable to pay a sum not exceeding' the value
of the book, or to replace the volume by a nev/ one, at
the discretion of the Trustees or Executiv Commit-
tee, and shall be liable to be suspended from all use
of the Library till any order of the Trustees or Execu-
tive Committee in the premises shall be fully complied
with to the satisfaction of such Trustees or Executive
Committee.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
Public.Resource.org and Law.Gov
http://www.archive.org/details/govuscourtsca9briefs0588
6
No. 1782
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
(In 3 Volumes.)
SOLOMON RIPINSKY.
Appellant,
VS.
G. W. HINCHMAN. WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN G. MORRI^
SON, J. A. NETTLES, CORTEZ FORD, TOM VALEUR, R.
M. ODELL, D. BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER. IDA JOHNSON,
M. E. HANDY, FRED HANDY. G. C. DE HAVEN, TIM
CREEDON, BENJAMIN A. MAHAN, THOMAS DRYDEN.
ED. FAY. JAMES FAY, H. FAY, W. W.WARNE, THOMAS
VOGEL. C. BJORNSTAD, H. RAPPOLT, KAREN BJORN-
STAD. M. V. McINTOSH, MARY V. McINTOSH, JESSE
CRAIG. E. A. ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A. J. DENNER-
LlNE. S. J. WEITZMAN. PETER JOHNSON, MRS. KATE
KABLER. and V. READE,
Appellees.
VOLUME 1.
(Pages 1 to 336, Inclusive.)
Upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska, Division No. 1.
s***
ft^2il9\0
FiLMER Bros. Co. Print, 330 Jackson St., S. F., Cal.
/
/ /
o i'r
No. 1782
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
(In 3 Volumes.)
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Appellant,
VS.
G. W. HINCHMAN. WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN G. MORRI^
SON, J. A. NETTLES. CORTEZ FORD. TOM VALEUR. R.
M. ODELL. D. BUTRICH. E. J. BERGER, IDA JOHNSON.
M. E. HANDY, FRED HANDY, G. C. DE HAVEN, TIM
CREEDON. BENJAMIN A. MAHAN, THOMAS DRYDEN.
ED. FAY. JAMES FAY. H. FAY. W. W.WARNE, THOMAS
VOGEL. C. BJORNSTAD. H. RAPPOLT, KAREN BJORN-
STAD, M. V. McINTOSH, MARY V. McINTOSH. JESSE
CRAIG, E. A. ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A. J. DENNER-
LINE, S. J. WEITZMAN. PETER JOHNSON. MRS. KATE
KABLER. and V READE,
Appellees.
VOLUME 1.
(Pages 1 to 336, Inclusive.)
Upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska, Division No. L
FiLMBR Bros. Co. Print, 330 Jackson St., S. F., Cal.
INDEX.
iClerk's Note: WTien deemed likely to be of an important natur»,
errors or doubtful matters appearing in the original certified record are
printed literally in italic; a.ni^, likewise, cancelled matter appearing in
the original certified record is printed and cancelled herein accord-
ingly. Wlien possible, an omission from the text is indicated by
printing in itrlic the t770 words batween which the omission ceems
to occur. Title heads inEerted by the Clerk are enclosed ^vithir
brackets.]
Page
Abstract of Title, etc., Exceptions to 773
Amended Complaint, Order Overruling Demur-
rer to the 10
Amended Complaint, Second 1
Amended Complaint, Second, Answer to the .... 10
Amended Complaint, Second, Demurrer to the . . 9
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint 10
Appeal, Bond on 917
Appeal, Order Allowing 916
Appeal, Petition for Allowance of 915
Assignments of Error 888
Bond on Appeal 917
Certain Offers in Evidence, etc 418
Certificate, Commissioner's, to Abstract of Cer-
tain Records 882
Certificate of Clerk United States District Court
to Transcript of Record, etc 927
Certificate of United States District Judge to the
Report of the Referee, and to the Excep-
tions and Objections, etc 887
Certificate, Referee's, to Report 52
Citation (Original) 921
ii Solomon Ripinshy, vs.
Index. Page
Commissioner's Abstract of Certain Eecords . . 796
Commissioner's Certificate to Abstract of Cer-
tain Records 882
Complaint, Amended, Order Overruling Demur-
rer to the 10
Complaint, Second Amended 1
Complaint, Second Amended, Answer to the .... 10
Comx3laint, Second Amended, Demurrer to the . . 9
Conclusions of Law 44
Decree 47
Defendant's Exhibit No, 1 (Notice of Location
of Homestead Signed by Sol. Ripinsky) . . 78
Defendant's Exhibit No. 3 (Amended Notice of
Location of Homestead, Signed by Sol. Rip-
insky) 776
Defendant's Exhibit No. 5 (Registry Receipt) . . 789
Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 (Letter Dated July
10, 1903, from R. W. Jennings to J. AV. ^lar-
tin) 761
Defendant's Exhibit No. 6 (Letter Dated Haines,
Alaska, July 10, 1903, from R. W. Jennings
to J, W. Martin) 788
Defendant's Exhibit No. 7 (Deed Dated Chilkat,
Alaska, December 2, 1897, from Sarah Dick-
inson to Sol. Ripinsky) 767
Defendant's Exhibit No. 7 (Deed from Sarah
Dickinson to Sol. Ripinsky) 779
Defendant's Exhibit No. 8 (Deed Dated Haines,
Alaska, January 2, 1900.. from W. A. Big-
low to Ben Baruett) 765
G. W. Binchman et al. iii
Index. Page
Defendant's Exhibit No. 8 (Receipt Dated Chil-
kat, Alaska, December 21, 1897, for $250.00
Received by S. Dickinson from Sol Ripin-
sky) 775
Defendant's Exhibit Ko. 9 (Quitclaim Deed
Dated Chilkat, Alaska, December 21, 1897,
from William Dickinson to Sol. Ripinsky) 785
Defendant's Exhibit No. 9 for Identification
(Qnitclaim Deed Dated Haines, Alaska,
February 24, 1902, from William Dickinson
to Sol Ripinsky) 761
Defendant's Exhibit No. 11 (Deed Dated
Haines, Alaska, February 24, 1902, from
Ben Barnett to Sol. Ripinsky) 787
Defendant's Exhibit No. 12 (Deed Dated
Haines, Alaska, January 2, 1900, from W.
A. Biglow to Ben Barnett) 783
Defendant's Exhibit No. 13 (Letter Dated
Washin^on, D, C, February 14, 1905, from
W. A. Richards to Sol. Ripinsky) 791
Defendant's Exhibit No. 14 (Letter Dated
Juneau, Alaska, June 24, 1907, from R. W.
Jennings to William Dickinson) 795
Defendant's Exhibits — Schedule "B" of Report
of Referee 773
Demurrer to the Amended Complaint, Order
Overruling 10
Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint . . 9
Deposition on Behalf of Defendant:
Franklin A. Rogers 462
Franklin A. Rogers (cross-examination) . . 474
iv Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Exceptions to Abstract of Title, etc 773
Exhibit — (Registry Receipt) 761
Exhibit "A" to Second Amended Complaint
(Map) 8
Exhibit No. 2, Plaintiffs' (Map of Haines,
Alaska) 886
Exhibit No. 3, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Homestead
Location of Edward Sanderson Smith,
Dated Decem.ber 14, 1897) 796
Exhibit No. 4, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Harry Fay, Dated December 14,
1897) .. ; 797
Exhibit No. 5, Plaintiffs' (Notice of "Building
Site" Location of Paul Loeffler, Dated
December 14, 1897) 797
Exhibit No. 6, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Carl Jules Anderson, Dated January
26, 1898) 798
Exhibit No. 7, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of John Lous^hlin, Dated January 26,
1898) 799
Exhibit No. 8, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated May 17, 1899, from William N.
Spooner to George Kern and James War-
ner) 800
Exhibit No. 9, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated December 14, 1899, from George
Kern and James Warner to J. G. Morrison) 801
Exhibit No. 10, Plaintiffs' (Bill of Sale, Dated
January 27, 1900, from George Kern to
John G. Morrison) 802
G. W. Hinchman et al. v
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 11, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated Februaiy 5, 1900, from James War-
ner to John Morrison and George Kern) . . 80'3
Exhibit No. 12, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
April 7, 1900, from J. G. Morrison et nx.
and George Kern to J. J. Calhoun) 804
Exhibit No. 13, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
December 4, 1900, from George Kern to
Alex. M. Ross) 806
Exhibit No. 14, Plaintiffs' (Qnitclaim Deed,
Dated July 6, 1901, from E. B. Cronen to
R. L. Weitzman) 807
Exhibit No. 15, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of G. C. De HaA-en and T. Creeden,
Dated November 9, 1901) 808
Exhibit No. 16, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
October 30, 1902, from Daniel Butterich and
Nathaniel Butterich to R. R. L. Weitzman) 809
Exhibit No. 17, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 30, 1902, from R. L. Weitz-
man et mar. to Daniel Butterich) 810
Exhibit No. 18, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
from Ben Barnett to Sol. Ripinsky) 812
Exhibit No. 19, Plaintiffs' (Release of Mort-
gage, Dated June 5, 1903, from A. M. Ross
to George Kern) 813
Exhibit No. 20, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated August 8, 1903, from Marcus W.
Lane to Mary V. Mackintosh) 814
Exhibit No. 21, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 2, 1903, from Harry Fay
et ux. to James Fay) 815
vi Solomon Ripinsky, vs.
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 22, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
July 19, 1904, from Tom Valeur et ux. to
W. H. Spencer) 816
Exhibit No. 23, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
July 1, 1905, from B. A. Mahan to Harry
Pay) 817
Exhibit No. 24, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. A. Adams, Dated January 10,
1899) 818
Exhibit No. 25, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Daniel Morris, Dated January 26,
1898) 819
Exhibit No. 26, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Gurtney R. Glen, Dated January
26, 1898) 820
Exhibit No. 27, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of George E. James, Dated February
12, 1898) 820
Exhibit No. 28, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of A. Blonde, Dated February 12,
1898) 821
Exhibit No. 29, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Adell Bigf ord. Dated December 14,
1898) 822
Exhibit No. 30, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 5, 1902, from Abbie J. Camp-
bell and S. J. Campbell to Karen Bjorn-
stad) 822
Exhibit No. 31, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of W. B. Stout, Dated July 24, 1902) . . 824
G. W. Hinchman et al. vii
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 32, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 14, 1903, from Felix
Gendzwill to James Fay) 824
Exhibit No. 33, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 13, 1903, from Timothy Vogel
to W. H. Spencer) 825
Exhibit No. ^4, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 19, 1904, from W. H. Spencer
et ux. to Tom Vainer) 826
Exhibit No. 35, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
November 18, 1905, from Thomas Valeur to
Timothy Vogel) 828
Exhibit No. 36, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Frank Brustkers, Dated September
6, 1906) 829
Exhibit No. 37, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Cortes Ford, Dated September 6,
1906) 830
Exhibit No. 38, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of T. Wildey Ford, Dated September .
6, 1906) 830
Exhibit No. 39, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of F. A.
Rogers, Dated December 7, 1897) 831
Exhibit No. 40, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Town Lot
Location of E. S. Hackley and L. S. Lillie,
Dated January 12, 1898) 832
Exhibit No. 41, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Charles J. Anderson, Dated January
20, 1898) 833
viii Solomon Ripinshy, vs.
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 42, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Eugene Sperry, Dated January 31,
1898) 834
Exhibit No. 43, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Laura Warne, Dated December 14,
1898) 834
Exhibit No. 44, Plaintiffs' (Bill of Sale, Dated
February 13, 1899, from Dommeici Cazze
to Erasmus J. Burger) 835
Exhibit No. 45, Plaintiffs' (Bill of Sale, Dated
March 17, 1899, from V. Reda to Josephine
Reda) 836
Exhibit No. 46, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 26, 1903, from Jim Puzza
to Harry Fay) 837
Exhibit No. 47, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 8, 1903, from M. W. Lane to
George W. Hinchman) 838
Exhibit No. 48, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated December 14, 1903, from M. W. Lane
to Carl Bjornstad) 839
Exhibit No. 49, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed
Dated October 6, 1904, from Carl Bjornstad
to Harry J. Cowger) 840
Exhibit No. 50, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 14, 1907, from Carl Bjorn-
stad to William Holgate) 841
Exhibit No. 51, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 5, 1907, from H. J. Cowger to
J. A. Pringle) 842
G. W. Hinchman et al. ix
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 52, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Location
for Trading and Manufacture of Eev. W.
W. Warne) 843
Exhibit No. 53, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Anna Mc-
Pherson) 844
Exhibit No. 54, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Trade and
Manufacture Location of Adell Bigford) . . 845
Exhibit No. 55, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Laura A.
Warne) 846
Exhibit No. 56, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of J. H. Bogart, Dated January 6,
1898) 848
Exhibit No. 57, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. Sanderson Smith, Dated January
31, 1898) 848
Exhibit No. 58, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Walter Baker, Dated February 3,
1898) 849
Exhibit No. 59, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Fred Deal, Dated February 4, 1898) 850
Exhibit No. 60, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. J. Brooks, Dated February 4,
1898) 850
Exhibit No. 61, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Bolilander, Dated Feb-
ruary 4, 1898) 851
Exhibit No. 62, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. H. Turner, Dated February 4,
1898) 852
X Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 63, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Chas. Reed, Dated February 15,
1898) 853
Exhibit No. 64, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Trading
and Manufacturing Site Location of Rev.
W. W. Warne) 853
Exhibit No. 65, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Trading
and Manufacturing Site Location of Lar-
son A. Warne) 85-1
Exhibit No. 66, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Trading
and Manufacture Site Location of Anna Mc-
Pherson) 856
Exhibit No. 67, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Trading
and Manufacture Site Location of Adell
Bigford) 857
Exhibit No. 68, Plaintiffs' (Bill of Sale, Dated
Dyea, Alaska, March 17, 1899, from V. Reda
to Josephine Reda) 858
Exhibit No. 69, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 3, 1903, from Harry Fay
and A. G. Meyers to Peter Johnson) 859
Exhibit No. 70, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed
Dated September 7, 1903, from A. G.
Meyers to Peter Johnson) 860
Exhibit No. 71, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 14, 1907, from J. H. Chisel to
H. Fay) 861
Exhibit No. 72, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Miss A. J.
Manning) 8^1
G. W. Hinchman et al. xi
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 73, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of G. Feller, Dated February 21, 1898) 863
Exhibit No. 74, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Viola Warne, Dated December 27,
1900) 863
Exhibit No. 75, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Jesse Craig, Dated September 9,
1903) 864
Exhibit No. 76, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of W. E. Craig, Dated September 9,
1903) 865
Exhibit No. 77, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Cooley, Dated June 13,
1907) 865
Exhibit No. 78, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Cooley, Dated June 14,
1907) 866
Exhibit No. 79, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of B. R. Creeden, Dated July 7, 1907) . 866
Exhibit No. 80, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Tim Creedon, Dated July 7, 1907) . 867
Exhibit No. 81, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Tim Creedon, Dated June 1, 1907) . . 867
Exhibit No. 82, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Dan Sullivan, Dated June 1, 1907) . . 868
Exhibit No. 83, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of John Sullivan, Dated June 10, 1907) 868
Exhibit No. 84, Plaintiffs' (Bill of Sale, from
John Sullivan to Tim Creedon) 869
Exhibit No. 85, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Dan Sullivan, Dated July 7, 1907) . . 870
xii Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 86, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of John Sullivan, Dated July 7, 1907) . 870
Exhibit No. 87, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 19, 1902, from Mrs. Es-
tella R. Dalton to Samuel G. Lucas) 871
Exhibit No. 88, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 29, 1902, from Samuel G.
Lucas to John G. Morrison) 872
Exhibit No. 89, Plaintiffs' (Mortgage, Dated
December 16, 1902, from Dr. J. M. Dryden
to M. W. Lane) 873
Exhibit No. 90, Plaintiffs' (Power of Attorney,
from Dr. J. M. Dryden to Thomas Dryden,
Dated January 10, 1903) 875
Exhibit No. 91, Plaintiffs' (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of S. J. Weitzman, Dated June 1, 1903) 876
Exhibit No. 92, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 3, 1903, from Lewis A. Treen
and Nina E. Treen to J. A. Nettles and Cor-
tes Ford) 877
Exhibit No. 93, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 14, 1904, from M. W. Lane
to J. W. Martin) 878
Exhibit No. 94, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 18, 1905, from J. G. Morrison
to James Fay) 879
Exhibit No. 95, Plaintiffs' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated June 23, 1906, from James Fay to B.
A. Mahan) 881
Exhibit No. 96, Plaintiffs' (Draft of Garden,
House and Dalton Acre) 885
G. W. Hinchman et al. xiii
Index. Page
Exhibit No. 97, Plaintiffs' (Complaint in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinski vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 748
Exhibit No. 98, Plaintiffs' (Amended Answer
in Cause Entitled Sol. Ripinski vs. M. W.
Lane et al.) 754
Exhibit No. 99, Plaintiffs' (Judgment in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 752
Exhibit No. 1, Defendant's (Notice of Location
of Homestead Signed by Sol. Ripinsky) . . . 778
Exhibit No. 3, Defendant's (Amended Notice
of Location of Homestead, Signed by Sol.
Ripinsky) 776
Exhibit No. 5, Defendant's (Registry Receipt) . 789
Exhibit No. 6, Defendant's (Letter Dated July
10, 1903, from R. W. Jennings to J. W.
Martin) 761
Exhibit No. 6, Defendant's (Letter Dated
Haines, Alaska, July 10, 1903, from R. W.
Jennings to J. W. Martin) 788
Exhibit No. 7, Defendant's (Deed Dated Chil-
kat, Alaska, December 2, 1897, from Sarah
Dickinson to Sol. Ripinsky) 767
Exhibit No. 7, Defendant's (Deed from Sarah
Dickinson to Sol. Ripinsky) 779
Exhibit No. 8, Defendant's (Deed Dated
Haines, Alaska, January 2, 1900, from W.
A. Biglow to Ben Barnett) 765
Exhibit No. 8, Defendant's (Receipt Dated Chil-
kat, Alaska, December 21, 1897, for $250.00
xiv Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Received by S. Dickinson from Sol. Rip-
insky) 775
Exhibit No. 9, Defendant's, for Identification
(Quitclaim Deed Dated Haines, Alaska,
February 24, 1902, from William Dickinson
to Sol. Ripinsky) 761
Exhibit No. 9, Defendant's (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated Chilkat, Alaska, December 21, 1897,
from William Dickinson to Sol. Ripinsky) . 785
Exhibit No. 11, Defendant's (Deed Dated
Haines, Alaska, February 24, 1902, from
Ben Barnett to Sol. Ripinsky) 787
Exhibit No. 12, Defendant's (Deed Dated
Haines, Alaska, January 2, 1900, from W.
A. Biglow to Ben Barnett) 783
Exhibit No. 13, Defendant's (Letter Dated
Washington, D. C, February 14, 1905, from
W. A. Richards to Sol. Ripinsky) 791
Exhibit No. 14, Defendant's (Letter Dated Ju-
neau, Alaska, June 24, 1907, from R. W.
Jennings to William Dickinson) 795
Exhibits, Plaintiffs'— Schedule "A" of Report
of Referee 796
Exhibits, Defendant's— Schedule "B" of Re-
port of Referee 773
Findings of Fact 39
Index, Statement of Official Acts, and Certifi-
cate of Referee 50
Introduction of Additional Evidence, etc., Stip-
ulation Concerning 422
Names of Attorneys of Record 1
G. W. HincJiman et al. xv
Index. Page
Oath of Referee 55
Opinion 17
Order Allowing Appeal 916
Order Extending Time to File Record in United
States Circuit Court of Appeals 924
Order of Reference 15
Order Overruling Demurrer to the Amended
Complaint 10
Petition for Allowance of Appeal 915
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2 (Map of Haines,
Alaska) 886
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 3 (Notice of Homestead
Location of Edward Sanderson Smith
Dated December 14, 1897) 796
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Harry Fay, Dated December 14,
1897) 797
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 5 (Notice of "Building
Site" Location of Paul Loeffler, Dated De-
cember 14, 1897) 797
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 6 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Carl Jules Anderson, Dated Janu-
ary 26, 1898) 798
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 7 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of John Loughlin, Dated January 26,
1898) 799
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 8 (Quitclaim Deed Dated
May 17, 1899, from William N. Spooner to
George Kern and James Warner) 800
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 9 (Quitclaim Deed Dated
xvi Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
December 14, 1899, from George Kern and
James Warner to J. G. Morrison) 801
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 10 (Bill of Sale, Dated
January 27, 1900, from George Kern to
John G. Morrison) 802
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 11 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 5, 1900, from James War-
ner to John Morrison and George Kern) . . . 803
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 12 (Mortgage, Dated
April 7, 1900, from J. G. Morrison et ux.
and George Kern to J. J. Calhoun) 804
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 13 (Mortgage, Dated De-
cember 4, 1900, from George Kern to Alex
M. Eoss) 806
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 14 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 6, 1901, from E. B. Cronen to R.
L. Weitzman) 807
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 15 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of G. C. De Haven and T. Creeden,
Dated November 9, 1901) 808
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 16 (Mortgage, Dated Oc-
tober 30, 1902, from Daniel Butterich and
Nathaniel Butterich to R. R. L. Weitzman). 809
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 17 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 30, 1902, from R. L. Weitz-
man et mar. to Daniel Butterich) 810
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 18 (Quitclaim Deed,
from Ben Barnett to Sol. Ripinsky) 812
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 19 (Release of Mortgage,
Dated June 5, 1903, from A. M. Ross to
George Kern) 813
G. W. Hinchman et al. xvii
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 20' (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated August 8, 1903, from Marcus W.
Lane to Mary V. Mackintosh) 814
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 21 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 2, 1903, from Harry Fay et
ux. to James Fay) 815
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 22 (Mortgage, Dated
July 19, 1904, from Tom Valeur et ux. to
W. H. Spencer) 816
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 23 (Mortgage, Dated
July 1, 1905, from B. A. Mahan to Harry
Fay) 817
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 24 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. A. Adams, Dated January 10,
1899) 818
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 25 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Daniel Morris, Dated January 26,
1898) 819
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 26 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Gurtney E. Glen, Dated January 26,
1898) '. 820
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 27 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of George E. James, Dated February
12, 1898) 820
Plantiffs' Exhibit No. 28 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of A. Blonde, Dated February 12, 1898) 821
I^laintiffs' Exhibit No. 29 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Adell Bigford, Dated December 14,
1898) 822
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 30 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 5, 1902, from Abbie J. Camp-
bell and S. J. Campbell to Karen Bjornstad) 822
xviii Solomon Bipinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Plaintiffs" Exhibit Xo. 31 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of W. B. Stout, Dated July 24. 1902) . . 821
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 32 (Quitclaim Deed.
Dated February 11. 1903. from Felix Gendz-
will to James Fay) 824
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 33 (Quitclaim Deed.
Dated March 13, 1903, from Timothy Yogel
to W. H. Spencer) 825
Plaintiffs* Exhibit Xo. 34 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 19, 1904, from W. H. Spencer
et ux. to Tom Vainer) 826
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 35 (Mortgage, Dated
Xovember 18, 1905, from Thomas Yaleur
to Timothy Vogel) 828
Plaintiffs" Exhibit Xo. 36 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Frank Biiistkers, Dated September
6, 1906) 829
Plaintiffs* Exhibit Xo. 37 (Xotice of Lot Loca-
tion of Cortes Ford, Dated September 6.
1906) 830
Plaintiffs* Exhibit Xo. 38 (Xotice of Lot Loca-
tion of T. T\^ildey Ford. Dated September
6, 1906) 830
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 39 (Xotice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of F. A. Rogers.
Dated December 7, 1897) 831
Plaintiffs* Exhibit Xo. 40 (Xotice of Town Lot
Location of E. S. Hackley and L. S. Lillie,
Dated January 12, 1898) 832
Plaintiff\s* Exhibit No. 41 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Charles J. Anderson, Dated January
20, 1898) 833
G. W. Hinchman et al. xix
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 42 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Eugene S perry, Dated January 31,
1898) 834
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 43 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Laura Warne, Dated December 14,
1898) 834
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 44 (Bill of Sale, Dated
Febiniary 13, 1899, from Dommeici Cazze to
Erasmus J. Burger) 835
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 45 (Bill of Sale, Dated
March 17, 1899, from V. Reda to Josephine
Reda) 836
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 46 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 26, 1903, from Jim Puzza
to Harry Fay) 837
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 47 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 8, 1903, from M. W. Lane to
George W. Hinchman) 838
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 48 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated December 14, 1903, from M. W. Lane
to Carl Bjornstad) 839
Plaintiffs' Exliibit No. 49 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 6, 1904, from Carl Bjornstad
to Harry J. Cowger) 840
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 50 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated February 14, 1907, from Carl Bjorn-
stad to William Holgate) 841
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 51 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 5, 1907, from H. J. Cowger to
J. A. Pringle) 842
XX Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 52 (Notice of Location
for Tradino- and Manufacture of Rev. W.
AV. Warne) 843
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Xo. 53 (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Anna Mc-
Pherson) 844
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 54 (Notice of Trade and
Manufacture Location of Adell Bigford) . . 845
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 55 (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Laura A.
Warne) 846
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 56 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of J. H. Bogart, Dated January 6,
1898) 848
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 57 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E, Sanderson Smith, Dated January
31,1898) '. 848
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 58 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Walter Baker, Dated February 3,
1898) 849
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 59 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Fred Deal, Dated February 4, 1898) 850
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 60 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. J. Brooks, Dated February 4,
1898) '. ... 850
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 61 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Bolilander, Dated February
4,1898) '. 851
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 62 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of E. H. Turner, Dated February 4,
1898) ; . . . 852
G. W. Hincliman et cd. xxi
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 63 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Clias. Reed, Dated February 15,
1898) 853
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 64 (Notice of Trading -
and Manufacturing Site Location of Rev.
W. W. AVarne) 853
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 65 (Notice of Trading
and Manufacturing Site Location of Larson
A. Warne) 854
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 66 (Notice of Trading
and Manufacture Site Location of Anna
McPherson) 856
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 67 (Notice of Trading
and Manufacture Site Location of Adell
Bigford) 857
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 68 (Bill of Sale, Dated
Dyea, Alaska, March 17, 1899, from V. Reda
to Josephine Reda) 858
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 69 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 3, 1903, from Harry Fay
and A. G. Meyers to Peter Johnson) 859
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 70 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 7, 1903, from A. G. Meyers
to Peter Johnson) 860
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 71 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 14, 1907, from J. H. Chisel to
H. Fay) 861
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 72 (Notice of Location
for Trade and Manufacture of Miss A. J.
Manning) 861
xxii Solomon Ripinsky, vs.
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 73 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of G. Feller, Dated February 21, 1898) 863
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 74 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Viola Warne, Dated December 27,
1900) 863
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 75 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Jesse Craig, Dated September 9,
1903) 864
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 76 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of W. E. Craig, Dated September 9,
1903) 865
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 77 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Cooler, Dated June 13,
1907) 865
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 78 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of William Coole^^ Dated June 14,
1907) 866
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 79 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of B. R. Creeden, Dated July 7, 1907) . . 866
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 80 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Tim Creedon, Dated July 7, 1907) . . 867
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 81 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Tim Creedon, Dated June 1, 1907) . . 867
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 82 (Notice of Lot Loca- '
tion of Dan Sullivan, Dated June 1, 1907) . 868
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 83 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of John Sullivan, Dated June 10, 1907) 868
Plaintiffs' Exliibit No. 84 (Bill of Sale, from
John Sullivan to Tim Creedon) 869
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 85 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Dan Sullivan, Dated July 7, 1907) . . 870
G. W. Hindanan et al. xxiii
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 86 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of Jolin Sullivan, Dated July 7, 1907) . 870
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 87 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated September 19, 1902, from Mrs. Es-
tella R. Dalton to Samuel G. Lucas) 871
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 88 (Quitclaim Deed
Dated September 29, 1902, from Samuel G.
Lucas to John G. Morrison) 872
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 89 (Mortgage, Dated
December 16, 1902, from Dr. J. M. Dryden
to M. W. Lane) 873
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 90 (Power of Attorney,
from Dr. J. M. Dryden to Thomas Dryden,
Dated January 10, 1903) 875
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 91 (Notice of Lot Loca-
tion of S. J. Weitzman, Dated June 1, 1903) 876
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 92 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated July 3, 1903, from Lewis A. Treen
and Nina E. Treen to J. A. Nettles and
Cortes Ford) 877
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 93 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated October 14, 1904, from W. W. Lane
to J. M. Martin) 878
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 94 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated March 18, 1905, from J. G. Morrison
to James Fay) 879
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 95 (Quitclaim Deed,
Dated June 23, 1906, from James Fay to
B. A. Mahan) 881
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 96 (Draft of Garden,
House and Dalton Acre) 885
xxiv Solomon Ripinsky. vs.
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 97 (Complaint in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 748
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 98 (Amended Answer in
Cause Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W.
Lane et al.) 754
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 99 (Judgment in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 752
Plaintiffs' Exhibits— Schedule ''A" of Report
of Referee 796
Praecipe for Transcript 925
Referee's Certificate to Report 52
Reply 13
Report of the Referee 50
Report of Referee 55
Report of Referee, Schedule "C" of— Testi-
mony 54
Report of Referee, Testimony and 55
Report of the Referee and to the Exceptions and
Objections, etc.. Certificate of United States
District Judge to the 887
Report, Referee's Certificate to 52
Schedule ''A" of Report of Referee— Plaintiffs'
Exhitos 796
Schedule "B" of Report of Referee— Defend-
ant's Exhibits 773
Schedule ''C" of Report of Referee— Testi-
mony 54
Second Amended Complaint 1
Second Amended Complaint, Answer to the .... 10
G. W. Hinchman et al. xxv
Index. Page
Second Amended Complaint, Demurrer to the . . 9
Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit "A" to
(Map) 8
Stipulation Concerning Certain Evidence, etc. . . 421
Stipulation Concerning Introduction of Addi-
tional Evidence, etc 422
Stipulation Concerning Testimony of 'Charles E.
Davidson 56
Stipulation Concerning Testimony of J. J.
Penglase et al., etc 733
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs :
E. A. Adams 398
E. A. Adams (cross-examination) 401
E. A. Adams (redirect examination) 403
E. A. Adams (in rebuttal) 643
E. A. Adams (in rebuttal — cross-examina-
tion) 644
Carl Bjornstad 390
Carl Bjornstad (cross-examination) 395
Carl Bjornstad (redirect examination) . . . 397
Carl Bjornstad (recalled) 410
Carl Bjornstad (cross-examination) 411
Carl Bjornstad (recalled — in rebuttal) .... 661
Carl Bjornstad (in rebuttal — cross-exami-
nation) 663
Peter Brown 306
Peter Brown (cross-examination) 312
Peter Brown (redirect examination) 315
Peter Brown (recross-examination) 316
Peter Brown (redirect examination) 317
J. W. Burnham 352
xxiv Solomon Ripinshy. vs.
Index. Page
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 97 (Complaint in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 748
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 98 (Amended Answer in
Cause Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W.
Lane et al.) 754
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 99 (Judgment in Cause
Entitled Sol. Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane et
al.) 752
Plaintiffs' Exhibits— Schedule "A" of Report
of Referee 796
Praecipe for Transcript 925
Referee's Certificate to Report 52
Reply 13
Report of the Referee 50
Report of Referee 55
Report of Referee, Schedule "C" of — Testi-
mony 54
Report of Referee, Testimony and 55
Report of the Referee and to the Exceptions and
Objections, etc., Certificate of United States
District Judge to the 887
Report, Referee's Certificate to 52
Schedule "A" of Report of Referee — Plaintiffs'
Exhi'bits 796
Schedule "B" of Report of Referee — Defend-
ant's Exhibits 773
Schedule ''C" of Report of Referee — Testi-
mony 54
Second Amended Complaint 1
Second Amended Complaint, Answer to the .... 10
G. W. Hinchman et al. xxv
Index. Page
Second Amended Complaint, Demurrer to the. . 9
Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit "A" to
(Map) 8
Stipulation Concerning Certain Evidence, etc. . . 421
Stipulation Concerning Introduction of Addi-
tional Evidence, etc 422
Stipulation Concerning Testimony of 'Charles E.
Davidson 56
Stipulation Concerning Testimony of J. J.
Penglase et al., etc 733
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs :
E. A. Adams 398
E. A. Adams (cross-examination) 401
E. A. Adams (redirect examination) 403
E. A. Adams (in rebuttal) 643
E. A. Adams (in rebuttal — cross-examina-
tion) 644
Carl Bjornstad 390
Carl Bjornstad (cross-examination) 395
Carl Bjornstad (redirect examination) . . . 397
Carl Bjornstad (recalled) 410
Carl Bjornstad (cross-exami|iation) 411
Carl Bjornstad (recalled — in rebuttal) .... 661
Carl Bjornstad (in rebuttal — cross-exami-
nation) 663
Peter Brown 306
Peter Brown (cross-examination) 312
Peter Brown (redirect examination) 315
Peter Brown (recross-examination) 316
Peter Brown (redirect examination) 317
J. W. Burnham 352
xxvi Solomon Ripinsky, vs.
Index. Page
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs — Continued:
J. W. Burnham (cross-examination) 356
Joseph Carl 325
Joseph Carl (cross-examination) 330
Joseph Carl (redirect examination) 338
Joseph Carl (recross-examination) 339
Tim Creeden 371
Tim Creeden (cross-examination) 381
Tim Creeden (redirect examination) 383
Tim Creeden (recross-examination) 383
Tim Creeden (recalled — in rebuttal) 671
Tim Creeden (in rebuttal — cross-examina-
tion) 673
Charles E. Davidson 57
Charles E. Davidson (cross-examination) . . 65
Charles E. Davidson (redirect examina-
tion) 72
Charles E. Davidson (recross-examina-
tion) 73
Charles E. Davidson 746
G. C. De Haven 384
G. C. De Haven (cross-examination) 387
G. C. De Haven (in rebuttal) 663
G. C. De Haven (in rebuttal — cross-exami-
nation) 664
G. C. De Haven (in rebuttal — redirect .ex-
amination) 666
Isaac Dennis 347
H. Fay 74
H. Fay (cross-examination) 97
H. Fay (redirect examination) 132
G. W. Hinchman et al. xxvii
Index. Page
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs — Continued:
H. Fay (reeross-examination) 135
H. Fay (further cross-examination) 173
H. Fay (redirect examination) 174
H. Fay (reeross-examination) 175
H. Fay (redirect examination) 181
H. Fay (recalled) 241
H. Fay (cross-examination) 243
H. Fay (redirect examination) 246
H. Fay (reeross-examination) 247
H. Fay (redirect examination) 248
H. Fay (reeross-examination) 249
H. Fay (further cross-examination) 274
H. Fay (redirect examination) 278
^ H. Fa}" (cross-examination) 300
H. Fay (redirect examination) 305
H. Fay (recalled — in rebuttal) 667
H. Fay (in rebuttal — cross-examination) . . 668
H. Fay (in rebuttal — redirect examination) 670
H. Fay (in rebuttal — reeross-examination). 671
H. Fay (recalled — in further rebuttal) .... 675
H. Fay (in rebuttal — cross-examination) . . 675
Chief George 345
Paddy Gu-Nate 322
G. W. Hinchman 136
G. W. Hinchman (cross-examination) 143
G. W. Hinclmian (redirect examination) . . 156
G. W. Hinchman (reeross-examination) . . . 158
Anna Jackson 349
Anna Jackson (cross-examination) 351
Shorty Jackson 343
xxviii Solomon Bipinsky vs.
Index. Page
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs — Continued:
Joe Kajikan 318
J. W. Martin 356
J. W. Martin (cross-examination) 362
J. W. Martin (redirect examination) 370
J. W. Martin (recross-examination) 371
J. W. Martin (recalled) 416
J. W. Martin (cross-examination) 417
J. W. Martin (redirect examination) 418
J. W. Martin (recross-examination) 418
J. W. Martin (in rebuttal) 653
J. W. Martin (in rebuttal — cross-examina-
tion) 656
John G. Morrison 182
John G. Morrison (cross-examination) .... 190
J. G. Morrison (recalled) 239
J. G. Morrison (cross-examination) 240
J. G. Morrison (in rebuttal) 646
J. G. Morrison (in rebuttal — cross-examin-
ation) 648
J. J. Penglase 738
J. J. Penglase (cross-examination) 744
J. J. Penglase (redirect examination) 744
J. J. Penglase (recross-examination) 745
Tom Phillips 339
Tom Phillips (cross-examination) 341
Tom Phillips (redirect examination) 342
W. B. Stout 256
W. B. Stout (cross-examination) 205
W. B. Stout (recalled) 404
W. B. Stout (recalled— in rebuttal) 657
G. W. Hinchman et al. xxix
Index. Page
Testimony on Behalf of Plaintiffs — Continued:
W. B. Stout (in rebuttal — cross-examina-
tion) 659
W. B. Stout (in rebuttal — redirect examin-
ation) 661
Tim Vogel 160
Tim Vogel (cross-examination) 165
Tim Vogel (redirect examination) 168
Tim Vogel (recross-examination) 170
Tim Vogel (redirect examination) 172
Tim Vogel (recross-examination) 172
S. J. Weitzman 194
S. J. Weitzman (cross-examination) 211
S. J. Weitzman (redirect examination) .... 238
S. J. Weitzinan (recross-examination) .... 238
S. J. Weitzman (recalled) 252
S. J. Weitzman (cross-examination) 253
S J. Weitzman (recalled) 412
S. J. Weitzman (cross-examination) 413
S. J. Weitzman (in rebuttal) 649
S. J. Weitzman (in rebuttal — cross-exam-
ination) 650
Testimony on Behalf of Defendant:
G. A. Baldwin 424
G. A. Baldwin (cross-examination) 435
G. A. Baldwin (redirect examination) .... 453
G. A. Baldwin (recross-examination) 456
G. A. Baldwin (redirect examination) .... 460
G. A. Baldwin (recross-examination) 460
G. A. Baldwin (redirect examination) .... 461
G. A. Baldwin (recalled) 548
XXX Solomon Bipinsky vs.
Index. Page
Testimony on Behalf of Defendant — Continued:
G. A. Baldwin (cross-examination) 54'9
G. A. Baldwin (redirect examination) .... 550
G. A. Baldwin (recross-examination) 551
G. A. Baldwin (redirect examination) .... 552
William Dickinson (in rebuttal) 676
William Dickinson (in rebuttal — cross-ex-
amination) 691
William Dickinson (redirect examina-
tion) 727
William Dickinson (recross-examination) . . 732
M. Eipin 478
M. Ripin (cross-examination) 490
M. Eipin (redirect examination) 534
M. Ripin (recross-examination) 540
M. Ripin (redirect examination) 543
M. Ripin (recross-examination) 544
Solomon Ripinski 554
Solomon Ripinski (cross-examination) .... 596
Solomon Ripinski (redirect examination) . . 634
Solomon Ripinski (recross-examination) . . 639
Solomon Ripinski (redirect examination) . 642
Elias Ruud 734
Testimony and Report of Referee 55
Testimony of J. J. Penglase et al., etc., Stipula-
tion Concerning 733
Transcript of Record, etc.. Certificate of Clerk
United States District Court to 927
Transcript, Praecipe for 925
Names of Attorneys of Record.
L. P. SHACKLEFORD, Attorney for Plaintiffs and
Ai3pellees.
MALONY & COBB and R. W. JENNINGS, Attor-
neys for Defendant and Appellant.
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1, at Juneau.
No. A.
G. W.HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN
G. MORRISON, J. A. NETTLES, OORTEZ
FORD, TOM VALEUR, R. M. ODELL, D.
BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER, IDA JOHNSON,
M. E. HANDY, FRED HANDY, G. C. DE
HAVEN, TIM CREEDON, BENJAMIN A.
MAHAN, THOMAS DRYDEN, ED FAY,
JAMES FAY, H. FAY, W, W. WARNE,
THOMAS VOGEL, C. BJORNSTAD, H.
RAPPOLT, KAREN BJORNSTAD, M. V.
McINTOSH, ^lARY V. McINTOSH, JESSE
€RAIG, E. A. ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A.
J. DENNERLINE, S. J. WEITZMAN,
PETER JOHNSON, MRS. KATE KABLER
and V. READE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
2 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
Second Amended Complaint.
Come now the plaintiffs above named, and file
this their amended complaint herein, and complain
of the defendant, and allege:
I.
That the plaintiff above named, and each of them,
are citizens of the United States and residents and
occupants of property in the town of Haines, in the
District of Alaska, and residents of and in occupancy
of lands embraced in Survey No. 573, at Haines,
Alaska, and that all of the land embraced in the said
United States Survey No. 573, situated in the town
of Haines, Alaska, is more particularly described as
follows, to wit:
Beginning at Cor. No. 1, Ripinsky 's house, from
which point U. S. L. M. No. bears S. 6° 45' W.,
2.64 chains distant, witness Cor. bears W. 30 links,
a stone marked S. 573 W. C. 1; thence from true Cor.
N. 14° 20' E., along mean high- water mark of Port-
age Cove, 2.30 chains to Cor. No. 2, not set, witness
Cor. bears W. 30 links, a stone marked S. 573 W. C.
2; thence from true Cor. W. 9.10 chs. to Cor. No. 3,
an iron pipe 3 inches in dia. marked S. 573 C. 3;
thence N. 3.16 chs. to Cor. No. 4, a granite stone
marked S. 573 C. 4; thence W. 31.27 chs. to Cor.
No. 5, a stone marked S. 573 C. 5; thence S. 1.68
chs. to Cor. No. 6, a stone marked S. 573 C. 6;
thence S. 80° 54' E. along north line of Presbyte-
rian Mission, 34.00 chs. to Cor. No. 7, an iron
pipe marked S. 573 C. 7; thence N. 1.67 chs. to
G. W. Hinckman et al. 8
Cor. No. 8, an iron pipe marked S. 573 C. 8; thence
E. 6.23 chs. to Cor. No. 1, the place of begin-
ning. Magnetic variation at all corners 28° 3{y east;
containing 15.40 acres, is within the exterior bound-
aries of the town of Haines, in the District of Alaska.
n.
That all of the said lands embraced in said Sur-
vey No. 573, and described in the last preceding
paragraph, have been ever since December, 1897,
and now are, in actual possession and occupation in
good faith of the plaintiffs herein as hereinafter
stated; that all of said lands embraced in said sur-
vey constitute the principal business section of the
town of Haines, Alaska, and that the plaintiffs now
are occupying in good faith, and have at all times
been occupying in good faith, said lands since the
said month of December, 1897, for business and resi-
dential purposes; that these plaintiffs have con-
structed buildings, such as stores, hotels, residences,
etc., in value exceeding the sum of fifty thousand dol-
lars ($50,000.00) ; that annexed hereto, and marked
Exhibit "A," and made a part hereof is a map of
the portion of the townsite of Haines, Alaska, in-
cluded within the exterior boundaries of the said
U. S. Survey No. 573, and the plaintiffs herein claim
that certain street fifty feet wide, and shown on said
map and known as Main street, and those certain
streets shown on the said map 75 feet wide, and
known as Second Avenue, Third Avenue, Fourth
Avenue, Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue, respect-
ively, and also that portion at Dalton street as shown
within the exterior boundaries of said survey, as
4 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
public streets and rights of way, and also claim that
certain alley way running between Dalton and Main
streets, and shown on said map and being 20 feet
wide, as a public right of way, or alle}^, which said
streets and alleys are claimed and used in common
by all of the plaintiffs herein and by all of the resi-
dents of Haines, Alaska; that the remainder of the
ground so set forth in said map and marked thereon
by metes and bounds and by numbered parcels is
claimed and occupied in severalty by the various
plaintiffs, respectively, as on said map shown and
indicated, as follows, to wit:
Block 1: Parcel 1, J. G. Morrison; parcel 2, Net-
tles & Ford; parcel 3, S. J. Weitzman; parcel 4, H.
Fay; parcel 5, Sol Ripinsky; parcel 6, J. W. Martin;
parcel 7, B. A. Mahan; parcel 8, M. V. Mcintosh;
parcel 9, J. W. Martin; parcel 10, James Fay; parcel
11, D. Butrich; parcel 12, R. L. Weitzman; parcel
13, R. L. Weitzman; parcel 14, E. A. Adams; parcel
15, Fred Handy; parcel 16, J. G. Morrison; parcel 17,
G. C. De Haven and Tim Creeden.
Block 2: Parcel 1, Thomas Yogel; parcel 2, T. D.
Valeur; parcel 3, Jim Fay; parcel 4, Ida Johnson;
parcel 5, S. J. Weitzman; parcel 6, M. E. Handy, par-
cel 7, W. W. Warne; parcel 8, W. W. Warne; parcel
9, W. W. Warne; parcel 10, W. W. Warne, parcel 11,
W. W. Warne; parcel 12, Karen Bjornstad; parcel
13, Karen Bjornstad; parcel 14, Karen Bjornstad.
Block 3: Parcel 1, Mary V. Mcintosh; parcel 2,
Wm. Bryson; parcel 3, H. Fay; parcel 4, E. J. Ber-
ger; parcel 5, Karen Bjornstad; parcel 6, Henry
Rappolt; parcel 7, Geo. Hinchman; parcel 8, Geo.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 5
Hinchman; parcel 9, C. Bjornstad; parcel 10, H.
Conger; parcel 11, Wm. Holgate; parcel 12, Wm.
Holgate.
Block 4: Parcel 1, Kate Kabler; parcel 3, H. Fay;
parcel 4, Pete Johnson; parcel 5, Pete Johnson;
parcel 6, Pete Johnson.
Block 5: Parcel 1, A. J. Dennerline; parcel 2, M.
E. Handy; parcel 3, Ed Pay; parcel 4, John Pad-
dock; parcel 5, Thomas Dryden; parcel 6, Mrs. Jesse
Craig.
Block 6: Parcel 1, Jo Stubbier; parcel 2, A. J. Den-
nerline.
III.
That the defendant, Solomon Ripinsky, claims an
interest or estate in and to said land embraced
within the said survey No. 573 adverse to these
plaintiffs, but that the said defendant, Solomon Rip-
insky, has never occupied any of said lands within
the said survey No. 573 except two small parcels —
one 25x50 feet, which he acquired by purchase from
one H. Fay, and another 100x150 feet which he oc-
cupies as a residence, both of which parcels of land
are marked and described on Exhibit "A" hereto
attached, and that said defendant, Solomon Rip-
insky, has no right, title or interest in or to any of
the remaining portion of said tract of land herein-
before described.
Wherefore, plaintiffs pray that a decree of this
Court be entered herein adjudging and decreeing.
First : That the plaintiffs herein are the owners of,
in the possession of and entitled to the possession
of all the lands hereinbefore described, save and ex-
6 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
cept two small portions hereinbefore described as
being in the actual possession of the defendant
herein.
Second: That the defendant has no right, title or
interest in or to any of the premises described in
the complaint herein, except said two small por-
tions hereinbefore described.
Third: That plaintiffs have and recover of and
from the defendant their costs and disbursements
herein, for such other and further relief as to the
Court seem meet and equitable.
SHACKLEFORD & LYONS,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
United States of America,
District of Alaska, — ss.
I, Lewis P. Shackleford, being duly sworn on oath
say: That I am one of the attorneys for the plain-
tiffs in the above-entitled action; that I have read
the foregoing Amended Complaint and know the
contents thereof and believe the same to be true;
that I make this verification because all of the ma-
terial allegations of said complaint are within my
personal knowledge.
LEWIS P. SHACKLEFORD.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day
of May, A. D. 1907.
[Notarial Seal] T. R. LYONS,
Notary Public for Alaska.
Due service of a copy of the within is admitted
this 11th day of May, 1907.
R. W. JENNINGS,
Attorney for Deft.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 7
[Endorsed] : Original. No. 547-A. In the District
Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1, at
Juneau. George Hinchman et al., Plaintiffs, vs.
Solomon Ripinsky, Defendant. Second Amended
Complaint. Filed May 11, 1907. C. C. Page, Clerk.
By A. W. Fox, Deputy. Shackleford & Lyons, At-
torneys for Plaintiffs. Office : Juneau, Alaska.
n
G. W. HincJiman et al. 9
[Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint.]
In the District Court for Alaska, Division No. One,
at Juneau.
G. W. HINCHMAN et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOL. RIPINSKI,
Defendant.
Defendant demurs to the Second Amended Com-
plaint, as interlined and for grounds of demurrer al-
leges:
That several causes of action have been improp-
erly united.
R. W. JENNINGS,
MALONY & COBB,
Attorneys for Defendant.
Due service of the within Demurrer is admitted
this 31st day of May, 1907.
SHACKLEFORD & LYONS,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
[Endorsed] No. 547-A. In the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No.
One, Juneau. Hinchman et al.. Plaintiff, vs. Rip-
inski. Defendant. Demurrer. Filed May 31, 1907.
C. C. Page, Clerk. By E. W. Pettit, Ass't. R. W.
Jennings, Malony & Cobb, Attorneys for Defdt. Ju-
neau, Alaska.
10 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
In the District Court for the District of Alaska, Di-
vision No. 1, at Juneau.
No. 547-A.
G. W. HINCHMAN. et al.,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
Order Overruling Demurrer [to the Amended Com-
plaint].
Now on this day this matter came on again for
hearing on the demurrer of the defendant to the
amended complaint filed herein, and after argument
had by the respective counsel herein, and the Court
being fully advised in the premises, overrules said
demurrer and defendant is given one week in which
to answer.
Done in open court Tuesday, June 4, 1907.
JAMES WICKERSHAM,
Judge.
In the District Court for Alaska, Division No. 1, at
Juneau.
G. W. HINCHMAN et al.,
vs.
SOL RIPINSKI,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 11
Answer [to the Second Amended Complaint].
For answer to the second amended complaint, de-
fendant
I.
Denies each and every allegation in said complaint
contained except the allegation contained in the
third paragraph before the word "but," in the third
line thereof.
And for an affirmative defense and by way of new
matter defendant alleges:
II.
That for a long time prior to August 1, 1897, de-
fendant's grantors were the owners, and in posses-
sion, of all the land now embraced in U. S. Survey
573 as mentioned in the said complaint, and entitled
to possession of same by virtue of jDrior claim, oc-
cupancy and improvement thereof.
III.
That prior to said first day of August, 1897, said
grantors had conveyed to defendant all their right,
title and interest in and to said tract, and that prior
to said date defendant had gone into actual posses-
sion and occupancy of said tract and remained in
actual, open, notorious and exclusive possession and
occupancy thereof as a home until the time men-
tioned in the next paragraph hereof; and by reason
thereof defendant was the owner thereof as against
all persons except the United States, and became
and is entitled to the same as a homestead, and to
enter the same under the acts of Congress extending
the homestead laws to Alaska.
12 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
IV.
That on or about August 1, 1897, and while defend-
ant was so the owner of, in possession, and entitled
to the possession of the tract aforesaid, plaintiffs and
their grantors wrongfully and unlawfully and with
force and violence, against the will and consent of
defendant, and in total disregard of his rights in the
premises, entered on and upon said tract, and wrong-
fully and unlawfully wrested from him possession of
certain portions thereof, as in said complaint de-
scribed.
V.
That by virtue of the said possession of and con-
veyance from defendant's grantors, and by virtue of
defendant's own possession and occupancy, as afore-
said, defendant is the owner and entitled to the pos-
session of said tract.
VI.
That plaintiffs have not, either jointly or severally,
any right, title or interest in or to said land, or any
part thereof.
Wherefore, defendant prays that the complaint
herein be dismissed, and that he may recover his costs
and disbursements.
R. W, JENNINGS,
MALONY & COBB,
Attorneys for Defendant.
Sol. Ripinsky, being sworn, says he is defendant in
above-entitled action ; that he has read the foregoing
answer, knows the contents thereof and the same are
true.
SOL. RIPINSKY.
G, W. Hinchman et al. 13
Subscribed and sworn to before me July 8/07,
R. W, JENNINGS,
Notary Public.
Service of the above and foregoing Answer ad-
mitted this 15 day of June, 1907, and verification
waived until day of trial.
T. R. LYONS,
Attorneys for .
[Endorsed] : Original No. 547-A. In the District
Court for Alaska, Division No. 1, at Juneau. O. W.
Hinchman et al.. Plaintiffs, vs. Sol. Rij)inski, De-
fendant. Answer. Filed Jun. 15, 1907. C. C. Page,
Clerk. By A. W. Fox, Deputy. R. W. Jennings and
Malony & Cobb, Attorneys for Defendant. Office:
Juneau, Alaska.
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1.
G. W. HINCHMAN et al..
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOL. RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
Reply.
Come now the plaintiffs and for reply to defend-
ant's answer on file herein, deny and allege as follows :
I.
Referring to paragraph II of said answer, on page
one thereof, plaintiffs deny each and every allegation
therein contained.
14 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
II.
Eeferring to paragraph III on pages one and two
of said answer, plaintiffs deny each and every allega-
tion therein contained.
III.
Eeferring to paragraph IV, on page two of said
answer, plaintiffs deny each and every allegation
therein contained.
IV.
Referring to paragraph V of said answer, plain-
tiffs deny each and every allegation therein con-
tained.
V.
Eeferring to paragraph VI of said answer, plain-
tiffs deny each and every allegation therein con-
tained.
Wherefore, plaintiffs demand judgment against
defendant as prayed for in the complaint herein.
SHACKLEFORD & LYONS,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
United States of America,
District of Alaska, — ss.
I, S. J. Weitzman, being first duly sworn, on oath
say: That I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-
entitled action ; that I have read the foregoing Eeply
and know the contents thereof, and believe the same
to be true ; that I make this verification because
S. J. WEITZMAN.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 15
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8tli day
of July, 1907.
[Notarial Seal] T. R. LYONS,
Notary Public for Alaska.
Service of the above reply accepted June 19, 1907.
E. W. JENNINGS.
[Endorsement] : Original No. 547-A. In the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No,
1, at Juneau. G. W. Hinclmian et al.. Plaintiffs, vs.
Sol. Ripinsky, Defendant. Reply. Filed Jun. 19,
1907. C. C. Page, Clerk. By A. W. Fox, Deputy.
Shackleford & Lyons, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Office: Juneau, Alaska.
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1.
G. W. HINCHMAN et al..
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOL. RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
Order of Reference.
Ordered that this cause be referred to L. R. Gil-
lette, attorney of this Court and a notary public,
to take and report the testimony; said L. R. Gillette
is to begin taking testimony herein on the 8th day of
July, 1907, and is to complete the same within one
week thereafter (said time is to be apportioned
equally between the parties hereto), unless the parties
by stipulation to be entered into in writing shall
agree upon another and different time and place;
16 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
depositions regularly taken may be admitted as evi-
dence before him; and all of tbe testimony is to be
reported to this Court on or before July 20, 1907;
plaintiffs shall be allowed until July 25, 1907, in
which to serve and file a brief and defendant shall
have five days thereafter in which to file his brief;
and plaintiffs five days thereafter to file a reply brief ;
other briefs may be filed by and on behalf of either
party by consent of both parties or by permission of
the Court.
Dated June 19, 1907.
JA^IES WICKERSHA^l,
Judge.
We consent to the above order, and request that
same be made, and hereby agree that on said testi-
mony to be taken and on said briefs so to be filed said
cause shall be submitted to Hon. James Wickersham,
Judge, and that same may be heard and determined
in term time or vacation.
SHACKLEFORD & LYONS,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
E. W. JENNINGS,
:MAL0NY & COBB,
Attorneys for Defendant.
[Endorsed] : No. 547-A. Hinchman et al. vs.
Ripinsk}'. Order of Reference. Filed Jun. 20, 1907.
C. C. Page, Clerk. R. E. Robertson, Asst.
G.:W.Hinchman et ah 17
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No, 1, at Juneau.
N^o. 547-A.
aw, HINCHMAN et al.,
vs..
SOLOMON EIPINSKY,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
Opinion.
Snit to Quiet Title.
Messrs. SHACKLEFORD & LYONS, for
Plaintiffs.
Mr. E. W. JENNINGS and Messrs. MALONY
& COBB, for Defendant.
GUNNISON, District Judge.
Plaintiffs bring this suit to quiet their respective
titles to certain lots or parcels of land situate in
the settlement or town known as Hines Mission,
lying on the westward shore of Lynn Canal, at what
is known. as Portage Cove. The land in controversy
is all embraced in United States Survey No. 573.
The particular description of this survey by metes
and bounds is set forth in the complaint, and plain-
tiffs allege that these lands, which embrace the prin-
cipal business section of Haines Mission, or Haines,
are now and since 1897 have been in the actual pos-
session and occupancy of the plaintiffs. Their re-
spective claims to the various lots are specifically
enumerated in the complaint, and it is there asserted
18 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
by them that they have in good faith occupied the
various parcel during the said time and have con-
structed thereon buildings such as stores, hotels, resi-
dences, etc., the value of v^hich exceeds the sum of
$50,000.00. They also assert a common interest and
claim in and to certain streets, avenues and alleys as
public rights of way or highv^ays, which they allege
are used in common by all the residents of the town
and by the public generally. They also allege that
the defendant, Solomon Ripinsky, claims in and to
the entire tract described in the complaint an interest
or estate adverse to the plaintiffs ; but that, vdth the
exception of two small parcels, one 25 by 50 feet,
which defendant purchased from one H. Fay, and
the second 100 by 150, occupied by him for residential
purposes, the defendant has never occupied any of
the land to which the plaintiffs seek to quiet their
title ; and that he has no title or interest in or to the
said land.
To the allegation of the plaintiffs, the defendant
interposes a general denial, and sets up an affirmative
defense, in which he alleges that for a long time prior
to August 1, 1897, his grantors were the owners and
in possession of all the lands described, and that by
virtue of the prior occupancy and improvement of
said land by his grantors they were entitled to the
possession thereof, and that prior to August 1, 1897,
the grantors had conveyed to the defendant all their
rights, title and interest therein ; that under said con-
versance defendant had gone into and remained in
the actual, open, notorious and exclusive possession
and occupancy of said land as a home ; by reason of
G. W. Hinchman et al. 19
which acts he was the owner thereof against all
persons except the United States, and' was entitled
thereto, and to enter the same as a homestead under
the Act of Congress extending the homestead laws
of the United States to Alaska. He also alleges that
on the date above mentioned, and while he was such
owner so in possession and occupancy, the plaintiffs
and their grantors, unlawfully and with force and
violence and against his will and in disregard of his
rights, entered upon said lands and ousted him there-
from.
The allegations of the affirmative defense are put
in issue in the reply. On stipulation of counsel, the
testimony in the case was taken before a referee.
At the hearing before the referee, and before any
evidence was taken, the defendant objected to the
taking of any testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs,
on the ground that the complaint does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to entitle
the plaintiffs to the relief sought, or to any relief.
The question of the sufficiency of the complaint and
of the amended complaint was raised by timely de-
murrer. The Court, after hearing the demurrer to
the original complaint, ordered the plaintiffs to
specify the paticular holdings, and, on this being
done, defendant demurred to the amended complaint.
This demurrer was overruled. The question as to
the sufficiency of the complaint, therefore, was set-
tled for the purposes of this trial. In order to
determine the other questions raised by counsel for
the defendant, in his brief, it will be necessary to
first examine the evidence.
20 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
The facts, as disclosed by the evidence, are sub-
stantiall}^ as follows: The land in controversy con-
sists of some fifteen acres lying north of and adjoin-
ing the tract located for and occupied hj the Presby-
terian Mission at Haines. Within the bounds of this
tract are situated the principal business, and a large
part of the residential, portions of the settlement or
town of Haines. The town has been platted and
streets and alleys laid out and used by the people of
Haines for several years. The land has been cleared
by the plaintiffs and their predecessors, streets and
alleys graded, and store buildings, hotels and houses
used as residences, barns and warehouses, and struc-
tures of like character, have been erected upon the
ground. The estimates of the amounts expended in
this work range from $50,000 to $100,000. The first
of the settlers at Haines made their locations and
commenced their occupancy on the 14th of December,
1897, and while it is a well-known rule of law that
the plaintiffs must recover upon the strength of their
title and not upon the weakness of the defendant, the
principal question in the case becomes one as to
whether or not the tract upon which the locations by
the settlers were made was public domain at the time.
The defendant, Col. Sol. Eipinsky, deraigns his pos-
sessory title to this tract under a quitclaim deed from
Mrs. Sarah Dickenson, by whom, he asserts, this tract
in controversy was possessed and occupied for many
years prior to the time when plaintiffs went upon the
ground.
In order to understand the situation, it is neces-
sary to go back to the year 1878, when George Dick-
G. W. Hinchman et al. 21
enson, the Imsband of Mrs. Sarah Dickenson, first
went upon the ground. Dickenson was accompanied
by his Indian wife and their children. At that time
acting as the representative of the Northwest Trad-
ing Company, he established a trading-post near the
beach of Portage Cove, in the buildings now occupied
by the defendant, and located for the trading com-
pany a tract, which his son William Dickenson testi-
fied was forty acres in extent. At the beach, he
erected three structures; a frame house, which was
used as a store and dwelling ; and two log houses, one
a warehouse and the other for the use of the natives
who came to trade. At the same time, he located a
tract of 160 acres for the mission, south of and ad-
joining the land taken up for the trading company.
A dense foi^st of heavy timber and thick under-
growth covered all the land in question. Through
this forest a narrow foot trail extended from the
beach, near where he constructed his buildings, to the
Chilkat River, some distance to the westward. At
Dickenson's request, an officer from the U. S. S.
Jamestown ran the lines of these tracts, and Dicken-
son set the corner posts. William Dickenson, the
son, testifies that around this forty-acre tract his
father ran a fence consisting partly of brush and
rails on the south line, and the balance of a single
galvanized wire, and that he also blazed the line.
Around the cabins which he had constructed, Dick-
enson cleared a small piece of ground which he used
as a garden. The evidence fails to disclose that the
tract of land, other than the small portion cleared for
the purpose of the garden, was ever put to any use
22 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
by Dickenson as the representative of the trading
company, or that he did anything in the way of main-
taining the fence or further improving the land.
William Dickenson testified that in 1880 his father
bought out the interest of the Northwest Trading
Company at that point. This is the only evidence
upon the subject. No deed or other documentary evi-
dence of tlie transaction was offered, and, indeed, it
is doubtful if any were executed. Prom 1880, George
Dickenson continued to occupy the buildings and
garden and carry on the trading business with the
natives at that place until 1888, when he/ died. I am
unable to find anything in the evidence which indi-
cates that Dickenson, after the time at which he took
over the interest of the trading company, repaired
the fences, maintained his corner posts ot mad^e any
improvements whatsoever upon the tract, or put the
tract to any beneficial use whatsoever, aside from the
small piece of ground lying immediately about the
house and containing not to exceed a couple of acres
of ground. This small tract, about which he built a
brush fence, he cultivated as a garden. Shortly after
taking over the business, he permitted one Blind
Isaac, an Indian, to build a cabin just to the north
of his dw^elling, and within the bounds of the tract
originally located for the trading company. A post
was set to show the new line between his premises
and those of the native. William Dickenson testifies
that his father, during his occupancy, cleared the
land back from the beach to a point about at the
eastern line of Block No. 2, as it appears on the map,
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, but this testimony is un-
G. W. Hinchman et al. 23
corroborated, and is contradicted by several wit-
nesses. As some twenty years or more have elapsed
between the time of which he was testifying, and the
appearance of the country has changed so completely
from what it was at that time, it is probable that the
witness was mistaken as to the distance. It is also
claimed by William Dickenson that the tract located
and claimed by his father was forty acres in extent,
that he never claimed any less, and that he never
disposed of any of the land save the small piece upon
which he allowed the Indian, Blind Isaac, to build.
After the death of the senior Dickenson, the family,
consisting of his wife Sarah Dickenson, defendant's
grantor ; his son, the witness William Dickenson, who
at that time was a young man of twenty-one ; and a
daughter, continued to reside at the trading-post and
carry on the business for some time. Mrs. Dicken-
son cultivated a portion, but not all, of the garden
for a few seasons; but during this period between
the death of George Dickenson and the execution of
the deed to Col. Ripinsky, the Dickensons, so far as
the evidence shows, did not maintain the original
fence or lines, nor did they exercise a single act of
ownership or dominion over any portion of the tract
outside of the garden plot.
In 1895, Mrs. Dickenson quitclaimed to Mrs. John
Dalton an acre of ground lying between the buildings
of the trading-post and the property of the mission,
to the south. This was a portion of the tract which
had been cleared for a garden by her husband.
Now, let us examine the acts of the defendant, as
throwing light upon his knowledge of conditions as
24 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
tliey existed, and the ownership of the tract of land
in question. In 1886, the defendant, Col. Eipinsky,
as the agent of the Bureau of Education, came to
Portage Cove to establish at that point a Government
school. George Dickenson and his family were at
that time living at the trading-post, and Dickenson
and Eipinsky became well acquainted. From 1886
until the present time Col. Eipinsky has lived in that
vicinity, and has been engaged in various business
enterprises and occupations. A portion of the time,
he lived on the Chilkat side of the peninsula. In
1897, he was engaged in the trading business at
Chilkat. Late in November, or early in December,
of that year, an outfit known as the Perry Humbert
Expedition landed at Portage Cove with the avowed
intention of projecting a railroad to the interior.
His long residence in the country had made him fa-
miliar with the business advantages of the various
localities, and this, taken with the proposed railroad
starting from Portage Cove, made it apparent that
that was to be the best site for a business in that
vicinity. He immediately set about acquiring the
rights of Mrs. Dickenson, and through the offices of
the Eev. Erankliu A. Eogers, who was stationed at
Haines as a missionary, he negotiated for and finally
obtained from Mrs. Dickenson a quitclaim deed (De-
fendant's Exhibit No. 7), which is as follows :
Chilkat, Alaska, December 2d, 1897.
Know all men by these presents, that I, Sarah Dick-
enson, of Chilkat, Alaska, in consideration of $200.00
Two Hundred Dollars to me in hand paid by Sol.
Eipinsky, of Chilkat, Alaska, the receipt whereof is
G. W. Hinchman et al. 25
; hereby acknowledged do hereby bargain, sell and
transfer unto the said Sol Eipinsky both buildings
and all the land adjoining the Presbyterian Mission
grounds situate at Haines Mission, Alaska, adjoin-
ing the Mission grounds on the south to the Indian
Village on the north, except one acre of land claimed
'by Mrs. J. Dalton. All the above property was left
to me by my deceased husband George Dickinson
was known as the Dickenson property which I will
defend against all claims.
Signed,
S. DICKENSON.
In the presence of
F. A. ROGERS.
G. A. BALDWIN.
Be it known that on the 2d day of December, one
thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, Mrs. Sarah
Dickenson, of Chilkat, Alaska, personally appeared
and makes oath that the following statement by her
subscribed is true.
Signed,
S. DICKENSON.
. In the presence of
F. A. ROGERS.
G. A. BALDWIN.
Before me,
[Seal] SOL. RIPINSKY,
Notary Public District of Alaska.
Col. Ripinsky, himself, drew the instrument and
took the acknowledgment of it as a notary. His
explanation as to whj^ he, who was the grantee in
the deed, took the notarial acknowledgment of it is
26 Solomon Ripinsky vs,
that he was the first, and in fact, the only notar}^ in
Alaska at that thne. Besides the acknowledgment
before him as a notary, the signature of Mrs. Dicken-
son was witnessed b}^ Rogers, who carried on the
negotiations for the purchase, and Grant A. Baldwin,
the person who w^as then in charge of the Koebler
& James store at Chilkat. The deed bears date the
2d day of December, 1897. It is contended by plain-
tiffs that the deed was, not executed until later in the
month, and Harry Fay, a plaintiff, and a witness,
testified, that Baldwin was not called upon to witness
the signature of the deed until some time after he.
Fay, had made his location of a lot at Haines. The
instrument itself negatives that assertion, since it
appears from the file mark upon it that it was filed
for record with the United States Commissioner at
Dyea on December 15, 1897, at 10 P. M. It is of
course possible that the instrument might have been
executed on the 15th day of December and yet filed
on that day, but the preponderance of the evidence is
against that conclusion. Col. Eipinsky testified that
the deed w^as executed on the day it bears date. The
witness Baldwin also says it w^as executed in his
presence about the 2d day of December, though he is
not positive as to the exact day. Morris Ripin,
brother of the defendant, testified that it was exe-
cuted on the 2d day of December. The testimony of
Franklin A. Rogers, the other witness to the signa-
ture, was taken by deposition. In his deposition he
says that the deed was executed and delivered about
the 9th or 10th of December. It is evident that
Rogers was testifying purely from memory, of an
G. W. Hinchman et al. 27
event that occurred nearly two years before, while
Ripinsky, Ripin and Baldwin had the opportunity
of inspecting the deed before testifying. In any
event, the preponderance of the testimony seems to
support the date of the instrument. As already indi-
cated, this deed was filed for record with the United
States Commissioner stationed at Dyea, a town lying
at the head of Lynn Canal, but at that time the Com-
missioner at Dyea was not an ex-officio recorder, the
only offices established for recording in southeastern
Alaska at that time being at Juneau, Sitka, and
Wrangell. Haines lay in the Juneau Recording Dis-
trict, and the deed was subsequently filed for record
in the office of the Commissioner at Juneau, something
more than a year after the attempted filing at Dyea.
It is, contended by the plaintiffs that certain altera-
tions or additions were made to the deed subsequent
to its execution. This contention is not supported
by the evidence.
A few days after the execution of this deed from
Mrs. Dickenson to Ripinsky, the son, William Dick-
enson, learned for the first time of the transaction.
He thereupon armed himself with a rifle and took
possession of the old buildings, demanding something
for himself out of the property. The defendant,
through Rogers, finally settled with him for $50.00,
and on December 21st, he executed to Ripinsky a
quitclaim deed for "both buildings and fifteen acres
of land adjoining the Presbyterian Mission, situate
at Haines Mission, Alaska, except one acre of land
claimed by J. Dalton."
28 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
This is tlie first appearance of the claim of fifteen
acres made by the defendant. In fact, it is the first
point in the case, when the various transactions are
considered chronologically, in which any other area
than the forty acres is claimed. There is nothing in
the evidence to explain why fifteen instead of forty
acres is attempted to be passed, when it is apparent
that the intention was to convey all of the Dicken-
son's rights there. It is absolutely impossible to
reconcile the statement and claim that George Dick-
enson located and claimed forty acres during his life-
time and that his family claimed that acreage after
his death, which was made hj William Dickenson on
the stand, with this deed of William Dickenson, De-
fendant's Exhibit No. 9.
Both Col. Bipinsky and his brother Morris Ripin
asserted that within a short time after the execution
of the deed by Mrs. Dickenson, and in the month of
December, they set about the construction of a two
line barbed-wire fence about the property, upon the
original lines. Ripinsky testifies that before he pur-
chased the property from Mrs. Dickenson, William
Dickenson, the son, went with him over the lines of
the tract and pointed out the corner posts to him.
Nowhere in Ripinsky 's testimony does it appear that
he saw any of the old fence or the wire which had
been put up by Dickenson's father. On the other
hand, William Dickenson testified that he did not
point out the lines of the property to Col. Ripinsky
until after Ripinsky had settled with him, more than
three weeks after the execution of the deed by Sarah
Dickenson, his mother; and that at the time that he
G. W. Hinchman et al. 29
went over tlie lines with Ripinsky, at the westerly
corner, hanging from one of the posts which he
pointed out to Ripinsky, was a portion of the wire
which had been originally placed there by his father.
This incident is not mentioned by Ripinsky. The
circumstances themselves, the deed from William
Dickenson to Ripinsky and the actions of William
Dickenson, would seem to corroborate his (Dicken-
son's) testimony that it was not until after he had
settled with Ripinsky that he pointed out the old
lines.
We now^ turn for a moment from the acts of Ripin-
sky to those of the plaintiffs. On December 14th,
Harry Fay, accompanied by several other men,
among them being Al. James, John Penglase, a party
named McLoughlin, and one other, whose name Fay
does not recall, went across the Chilkat to Haines for
the purpose of locating town lots, their interest in the
proposition being inspired by the railroad project.
The party was accompanied by the witness William
Dickenson. They arrived there early in the morning,
and went at once to the Mission, where they consulted
W. W. Warne, who was connected w^ith the Haines
Mission, and also talked wdth the witness Dickenson
as to what ground, if any, was claimed by anyone
else. It was contended by plaintiffs that Dickenson
pointed out the garden surrounding the old Dicken-
son trading-post, and the buildings on that, as the
property belonging to his mother. The preponder-
ance of the testimony seems to support this assertion,
though Dickenson denies it. Warne also indicates
certain lots or parcels of ground which he, himself.
30 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
had located. As already indicated, this land was
heavily timbered, and this witness and all other wit-
nesses who were called to testify as to conditions in
the winter of 1897-8 testified that the land was not
cleared or improved in any way, that it w^as covered
with heavy timber. The men in this party proceeded
to stake their lots. Fay placed a tent on the ground
staked by him, marked out the boundaries and,
shortly after, proceeded to clear the ground, fence it
and put up buildings. Settlers continued to come
through the balance of the winter and the spring of
the following year, and in the next fall there was a
considerable influx of people, due to the gold discov-
eries in the Porcupine.
We now turn again to the acts of Eipinsky, with
regard to the building of the fence by him. Over this
question of fence building, there is much contradic-
tion. Morris Ripin testifies that, within a few days
after his brother obtained the deed from Mrs. Dick-
enson, both he and Col. Ripinsky started out with
gangs of Indians and one white man named Adolph,
whose last name no one seemed to know, and who has
disappeared, proceeded to build a two line barbed-wire
fence around the property. The evidence as to this
fence building is decidedly unsatisfactory and not at
all convincing. On the other hand, there is no testi-
mony, aside from theirs, of anyone who saw a two line
barbed- wire fence, though there is testimony by Bald-
win and Carl of having seen a barbed wire strung
along the southern and at part of what was thought
to be the western boundary of this tract. On the
other hand, it is, I think, established beyond question
G. W. Hinchman et al. 31
that Fay and his associates went upon the ground on
the 14th of December of that year, located their lines,
and from that time on, engaged in the work of fencing
and clearing their several lots and buildings on them.
As many of these lots face on Main Street, or what is
known as the old Porcupine trail, close to the south-
ern boundary of the tract claimed by Ripinsky, it
seems impossible that Ripinsky and his men engaged
in the building of this fence would not have encoun-
tered, or at least have seen these settlers, or that the
settlers w^ould have seen Ripinsky and his men, at
some time during that period, for under the existing
conditions, it would be impossible to string the wire
and build the fence within a short time. And even
had they completed the fence prior to the coming of
Fay and his associates, they or someone else must
have seen it. The evidence as to a fence on the north
side of the Porcupine trail is vague and indefinite,
practically the only fence to which anyone testifies
being a single wire, which appears to have been a por-
tion of the fence placed around the Haines Mission
tract, and there are no witnesses who testify to hav-
ing seen a fence on the north or west side, while many
testify that, though they traveled back and forth over
the tract in various directions during the winter of
1897-8 and the years 1898 and 1899, they never saw
the fence or any portion of it. Defendant has failed
to establish the construction of a fence about this
property, and aside from this testimony of the build-
ing of the fence, there is no testimony whatever in the
case of the exercise of any acts, of ownership, pos-
session or occupation of the land, except that in the
32 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
spring of 1898 lie brought an action in ejectment in
the District Court, entitled Ripinsky vs. M. W. Lane
et al., in which he sought to recover possession of the
tract upon practically the same grounds that he here
sets up in defense to this action. The plaintiffs,
Harry Fay, Tim Vogel and W. W. Warne, in this ac-
tion, were defendants in the action referred to. That -
action was tried before a jury and a verdict returned
for the defendants. It is plain from the testimony
of most of the plaintiffs in the case at bar that they
were cognizant of the claim of Ripinsky to the
ground, though he made no formal protest against
their building on the property until the year 1903.
In the month of July, 1903, he sent by registered
mail to a number of persons on this tract a formal
protest against their building thereon, and asserting
his claim to the property. No effort was made by
him to maintain his fences or to reduce any portion
of the tract in question, whether occupied or not, to
possession, though the evidence discloses a few in-
stances in which he, or someone representing him,
made a verbal claim of o^^nership to some of the
plaintiffs, and protested against their building
thereon, but this was long after the people were in
possession and after they had commenced work upon
the buildings on their lots. One fact has, I think,
considerable bearing upon the good faith of the de-
fendant in his claim of this tract as a homestead. In
1902, he purchased from one, Ben Barnette, a two-
story building and lot, which is described in the deed
as half of Lot 4, fronting on Main Street, and which
appears in the plat of the town (Plaintiffs' Exhibit
G. W. Hinchman et al. 33
No. 1) as Lot 5, Block 1. While such purchases are
frequently made with a view of disposing of contests
over property and thus avoiding litigation, there is
nothing in the acts of Col. Ripinsky, as I view the
case, that indicates such a purpose in this transaction.
The fact that the deed itself, which was drawn by the
defendant describes the property as ''situated on Sol.
R. Ripinsky's homestead claim" does not strengthen
his position. The amended notice of location posted
some time in December, 1905, and filed in the office of
the Recorder at Skagway on December 18th of that
year, are both made and based upon "the exclusive
legal right of ownership of said tract through mean
conveyances and transfers to this claim from the
original claimants who settled upon and exclusively
occupied the same, according to law, from the year
1878 to the date of the transfer, and that he claims an
actual, personal and continuous occupation thereof
and settlement thereon since the month of December,
1897." The basis of his claim, then, is the prior,
actual, personal and continuous occupation of the
tract in question by his predecessors, the Northwest
Trading Company and the Dickensons. It is clear
that, if prior to the conveyance from Mrs. Dickenson
to the defendant the Dickensons had reduced this
property to possession, they would have had a pos-
sessory right in the tract which they could have con-
veyed to the defendant ; but before any such right ac-
crued, they must not only have been actually resident
upon the property, but they must have so cultivated
and improved the land and established and main-
tained their boundaries by substantial posts and
34 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
fences, as to reduce it to possession and give evidence
to the world of what they claimed. Price vs. Brock-
way, 1 Alaska, 235; 26 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of L., 254;
Payton vs. Denman, 129 Fed. 1. This possessory
right can only be acquired by actual as distinguished
from constructive possession, by which is meant a
subjection of the land to the will and dominion of
the claimant, and this is usually evidenced by sub-
stantial enclosure, by cultivation, occupation, or
some other proper and appropriate use, according to
the locality of the property. 26 Am. & Eng. Encyc.
of L., 233-4; English vs. Johnson, 76 Am. Dec, 574.
There is no evidence in this case that supports the
claim of possessory right to anything more than the
garden plot about the buildings at the beach, and the
deed from Mrs. Dickenson to Ripinsky, in my opin-
ion, conveyed only that tract.
If, however, before the rights of the plaintiffs had
accrued to this tract, this defendant had actually re-
duced the property to possession by some such acts
as indicated above, he undoubtedly could have suc-
ceeded in this action; for the prior possession of the
first occupant would be better than the subsequent
possession of the last. Walsh vs. Ford, 1 Alaska, 146,
at 152; English vs. Johnson, 17 Cal. 108; 76 Am. Dec.
574; Campbell vs. Ramkin, 99 U. S. 261. But the de-
fendant has failed to establish any such subjection of
the property or the land in controversy to his will
and dominion, and it is clear that when Fay and his
associates went upon the land it was public domain.
It is conceded by the defendant that subsequent to
the location of the first settlers. Fay and others, at
G. W. Hmchmcm et al. 35
Haines Mission, the defendant exercised no control
over the tract, but it is urged, and with reason, that
from that time the entire tract claimed by him was
overrun by others, and that he could not without
the exercise of force and violence have made any
improvements upon the tract. Had his grantor had
any rights to the property in controversy which she
might have conveyed to the defendant, the situa-
tion would have been materially changed, and the
entry of Fay, Warne and others would have been
an unwarranted intrusion which could have afforded
them no relief, nor could it have given them any
standing. Under the facts as they appear in the
evidence, in my opinion, thej were rightfully upon
the ground, and established their rights to the exclu-
sion of any other rights which Ripinsky now claims
to the tract, outside of that which appears on the
plat marked ''Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, Ripinsky's
Homestead." This smaller tract has from the month
of December, 1897, until the commencement of this
action been actually occupied and possessed by the
defendant, and over it he has exercised acts of con-
trol and ownership which gave to him the exclusive
right against all persons save the United States.
This, however, does not extend to the larger tract.
But the defendant's counsel, in his brief, urges
that there is disclosed by the evidence such multi-
fariousness of interest on the part of the plaintiffs
that the only judgment that can be rendered is one
of dismissal. He points out that none of the plain-
tiffs claim under the same instrument or by virtue
of locations made at the same time and under the
36 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
same conditions. It is true that no two claim under
the same instrument. It is also a fact that those
claiming under original locations did not, with a few
exceptions, locate on the same day; but, on the other
hand, it cannot be disputed that the claim of every
plaintiff is based primarily upon possession and oc-
cupation, and the only title held by any of them is
an equitable one, whether they were the first lo-
cators of the lots or whether they bought out some
prior occupant.
While "courts will not permit several complain-
ants to demand in one bill, although against the same
defendant, several matters distinct and uncon-
nected" (15 Enc. of Plead. & Prac, 667), and such a
bill is undoubtedly bad, that situation does not exist
here. These plaintiffs are not demanding distinct
and unconnected relief against this defendant. They
seek the removal from their several holdings of the
cloud raised by the defendant's claim of interest.
It is only when the interests of the plaintiffs are
conflicting that their joinder as parties plaintiff is
objectionable. On the other hand, it is well settled
that where one general right is claimed and there
is a common interest among all the plaintiffs in the
subject of the suit, and the same relief is sought
against the same defendants, their joinder is proper.
15 Encyc. of Plead. & Prac. QQS, and cases cited.
The facts in the case of Utterbach vs. Meeker, 47
Pac. 428, cited by defendant in support of his con-
tention, are so entirely different from the facts in
the case at bar as to render it, in my opinion, in-
applicable.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 37
An examination of the evidence discloses that the
defendant's claim is either good or bad as against
all the plaintiffs, for it is based absolutely on al-
leged facts and transactions which occurred prior
to December 14, 1897, when the first of the locations
made by plaintiffs occurred. Osburn et al. vs. Wis.
R. R., 43 Fed. 824. It is patent that if, at that time,
the defendant had obtained any rights in this tract,
it was upon an unoccupied public domain, and if not,
then plaintiffs could establish no rights; but, if the
defendant had not prior to December 14th estab-
lished his rights to the tract now claimed by him,
plaintiffs must succeed; and, as this condition of af-
fairs exists in my opinion, it follows that decree
should be entered for the plaintiffs.
As this is decisive of the suit, it seems unneces-
sary to consider the other questions raised by plain-
tiffs as to the validity of the deed by reason of the
notarial acknowledgment having been taken before
the grantee who is the defendant, or as to whether
or not the filing of the deed with the United States
Commissioner at Dyea, where no recording office
was established, w^as sufficient notice to third par-
ties. The plaintiffs also urge that the defendant's
claim is barred because of seven years adverse pos-
session by the plaintiffs. This contention too falls,
upon an examination of the evidence. Whether or
not the defendant is estopped from making a claim
to the tract by the judgment in the case of Ripinsky
vs. Lane, it is unnecessary to decide. The pleadings
and judgment in that action were, in my opinion.
38 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
properly offered and should be received in evidence.
They have been considered by me, as have the two
deeds Defendant's Exhibits No. 7 and No. 9, respec-
tively, from Sarah Dickenson and William Dicken-
son to the defendant.
In view of the facts as found in this case, it also
seems unnecessary to discuss with particularity in
this opinion the subject of the various lot claimed
by the plaintiffs. The decree should be entered in
favor of the plaintiffs.
Dated, this 10th day of July, 1908.
ROYAL A. GUNNISON,
District Judge.
[Endorsed] : No. 547-A. In the District Court of
the United States for the District of Alaska, Divi-
sion No. 1. G. W. Hinchman et al. vs. Solomon Rip-
insky. Opinion. Filed Jul. 15, 1908. C. C. Page.
Clerk. By E. W. Pettit, Asst.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 39
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1, at Juneau.
G. W. HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN
G. MORRISON, J. A. NETTLES, CORTEZ
FORD, TOM VALEUR, R. M. ODELL, D.
BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER, IDA JOHNSON,
M. E. HANDY, FRED HANDY, G. C. DE
HAVEN, TIM CREEDON, BENJAMIN A.
MAHAN, THOMAS DRYDEN, ED. FAY,
JAMES FAY, H. FAY, W. W. WARNE,
THOMAS VOGEL, C. BJORNSTAD, M. V.
McINTOSH, MARY V. McINTOSH, JESSE
CRAIG, E. A. ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A.
J. DENNERLINE, S. J. WEITZMAN,
PETER JOHNSON, MRS. KATE KABLER
and V. READE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
Findings of Fact.
Now on this day this cause coming on to be heard
on the testimony heretofore taken by the referee
in this cause and thereafter submitted to the Court,
and the opinion of the Court heretofore rendered
herein, on the 10th day of July, 1908, and the Court
being now fully advised in the premises, makes and
enters herein its findings of fact as follows, to wit:
I.
That all of the plaintiffs herein named were at the
40 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
commencement of this action, and had been for a
long time prior thereto, residents of the town of
Haines, Alaska, and were at said time, and for a
long time prior thereto, in possession and occupa-
tion of all the lands embraced in Survey No. 573, at
Haines, Alaska, except two small tracts which are
hereinafter in these findings described; that said
tract of land so owned and occupied by the plain-
tiffs herein is described as follows, to wit:
Beginning at Cor. No. 1, under Ripinsky's house,
from which point U.S.L.M. No. bears S. 6° 45'
W. 2.64 chains distant, witness Cor. bears W. 30
links, a stone marked S. 573 W.C. 1; thence from
true Cor. N. 14° 20' E., along mean high-water mark
of Portage Cove, 2.30 chains to cor. No. 2, not set,
witness Cor. bears W. 30 links, a stone marked S.
573 W.C. 2; thence from true Cor. W. 9.10 chs. to
Cor. No. 3, an iron pipe 3 inches in dia. marked S.
573 C. 3; thence N. 3.16 chains to Cor. No. 4, a granite
stone marked S. 573 C. 4; thence W. 31.27 chs. to
Cor. No. 5, a stone marked S. 573 C. 5; thence S.
1.68 chs. to Cor. No. 6, a stone marked S. 573 C. 6;
thence S. 80° 54' along north line of Presbyterian
Mission, 34.00 chs. to Cor., No. 7, an iron pipe marked
S. 573 C. 7; thence N. 1.67 chs. to cor. No. 8, an iron
pipe marked S. 573 C. 8; thence E. 6.23 chs. to Cor.
No. 1, the place of beginning. Magnetic variation
at all comers 28° 30' east; containing 15.40 acres,
is within the exterior boundaries of the town of
Haines, in the District of Alaska.
n.
That the defendant acquired no right, title or in-
G. W, Hinchman et dl. 41
terest in or to any of tlie premises described in para-
graph one (1) of these findings by virtue of the
alleged deed, dated December 2, 1897, and signed
by S. Dickinson; and that the defendant acquired
no right, title, interest, possession or right of pos-
session in or to any of the premises described in
paragraph one (1) of these findings by virtue of the
homestead location notice, which he filed in the re-
cording office at Skagway, Alaska, on the 23d day
of June, 1903 ; and the defendant acquired no right,
title, interest, possession or right of possession in
said premises by virtue of the amended location,
which he filed in the recording office at Skagway,
Alaska, on the 18th day of December, 1905, and the
said defendant never has had any right, title or in-
terest in or to any of the premises described in par-
agraph one (1) of these findings, except two small
parcels hereinafter described, one of which he ob-
tained by purchase, and the other by actual occupa-
tion.
ni.
That all of the lands embraced in said Survey No.
573 and described in paragraph one (1) of these
findings, except two small parcels hereinafter de-
scribed in these findings, were at the commencement
of this action, and had been ever since and prior to
June 23, 1903, in the actual, notorious and exclusive
possession and occupation, in good faith, of the
plaintiffs herein and of their grantors; that all of
said lands embraced in said Survey No. 573 consti-
tute the principal business section of the town of
Haines, Alaska, and that the plaintiffs were at the
42 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
commencement of this action, and have been at all
times since the 22d da}^ of June, 1903, occupying
said lands in good faith, for business and residen-
tial purposes; that these plaintiffs and their grant-
ors have constructed buildings, such as stores,
hotels, residences, etc., on said parcel of land, in
value exceeding the smn of fift}^ thousand dollars;
that the larger portion of said land embraced in said
survey was, at the time of the commencement of
this action, and has been since June 22, 1903, and
prior thereto, occupied by the plaintiffs and their
grantors in severalty, and that the remaining por-
tions, except two small tracts hereinafter described
in these findings, were occupied and used b}' the
plaintiffs, at the time of the commencement of this
action and at all times since the 22d day of June,
1903, and prior thereto, as streets and alleys and
thoroughfares.
IV.
That the defendant had no right, title or interest
in or to any of said tract of land at the time of the
commencement of this action, and never had any
right, title or interest or possession in or to said
tract of land, except two small tracts — one 20 ft.
wide by 50 ft. long, known and described as Lot 5,
in Block one (1), in said town of Haines, and an-
other small tract of land 100 ft. wide by 150 ft. long,
which last parcel of land said defendant occupies as
a residence and which is in the extreme easterly end
of said tract of land, and is used by said defend-
ant as a residence, store and garden, and said last
mentioned tract of land of the said defendant is east
G. W. Hincliman et al. 43
of said Block one in the town of Haines; tliat said
two tracts of land described are included within the
lines embraced in said Survey No. 573, and were
owned and occupied by the defendant at the time
of the commencement of this action, but said two
small tracts of land are the only portions of said
land embraced in said Survey No. 573, which were
owned or occupied by the defendant at the time of
the commencement of this action, or were ever
owned, possessed or occupied by said defendant. To
all of which the defendant excepts and the excep-
tion is allowed.
Done in chambers this 31st day of Au^st, 1908.
ROYAL A. GUNNISON,
Judge.
[Endorsed] : Original. No. 547-A. In the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No,
1, at Juneau. G. W. Hinchman et al.. Plaintiffs, vs.
Solomon Ripinsky, Defendant. Findings of Fact.
Filed Aug. 31, 1908. C. C. Page, Clerk. By A. W.
Fox, Deputy. Shackleford & Lyons, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs. Office: Juneau, Alaska.
44 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,,
Division No. 1, at Juneau.
G. W. HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN
G. MORRISON, J. A. NETTLES, CORTEZ
FORD, TOM VALEUR, R. M. ODELL, D.
BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER, IDA JOHNSON,
M. E. HANDY, FRED HANDY, G. C. DE
HAVEN, TIM CREEDON, BENJAMIN A.
MAHAN, THOMAS DRYDEN, ED. FAY,
JAMES FAY, H. FAY, W. W. WARNE,
THOMAS VOGEL, C. BJORNSTAD, H.
RAPPOLT, KAREN BJORNSTAD, M. V.
McINTOSH, MARY V. McINTOSH, JESSE
CRAIG, E. A. ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A.
J. DENNERLINE, S. J. WEITZMAN,
PETER JOHNSON, MRS. KATE KABLER
and V. READE,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
Conclusions of Law.
The Court having heretofore made and entered its
findings of fact herein, now makes and enters its con-
clusions of law based on said findings of fact:
I.
That the plaintiffs were at the time of the com-
mencement of this action the owners of, and en-
titled to the possession of all of the following de-
scribed parcel of land situated in Haines, Alaska,
and more particularly described as follows, to wit:
G. W. Hincliman et al. 45
Beginning at Cor. No. 1, under Ripinsky's house,
from wMeh point U.S.L.M. No. bears S. 6° 45'
W. 2.64 chains distant, witness Cor. bears W. 30
links, a stone marked S. 573 W.C. 1; thence from
true Cor. N. 14° 20' E., along mean high-water mark
of Portage Cove, 2.30 chains to Cor. No. 2, not set
witness Cor. bears W. 30 links, a stone marked S.
573 W.C. 2; thence from true Cor. W. 9.10 chs. to
or No. 3. an iron pipe 3 inches in diam. marked S.
573 C. 3; thence N. 3.16 chains to Cor. No. 4, a
granite stone marked S. 573 C. 4; thence W. 31.27
chs. to Cor. No. 5, a stone marked S. 573 C. 5; thence
S. 1.68 chs. to Cor. No. 6, a stone marked S. 573 C.
6; thence S. 80° 54' E. along north line of Presbyte-
rian Mission, 34.00 chs. to Cor. No. 7, an iron pipe
marked S. 573 C. 7; thence N. 1.67 chs. to Cor. No.
8, an iron pipe marked S. 573 C. 8; thence E. 6.23
chs. to Cor. No. 1, the place of beginning. Mag-
netic variation at all corners 28° 30' east; contain-
ing 15.40 acres, is within the exterior boundaries of
the town of Haines, in the District of Alaska, and
embraced in Survey No. 573.
Except two small portions of said tract, which
were owned and occupied by the defendant, namely:
Lot No. 5, in Block No. 1, being a small parcel in
the southeasterly portion of said tract of land, be-
ing 25 by 50 feet, and another tract in the extreme
easterly part of the said tmct of land, being 100 by
150 feet, the same being east of Block No. 1, of the
town of Haines; that the defendant was at the time
of the commencement of this action, the owner of
46 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
and entitled to the possession of said two last men-
tioned tracts of land, but the defendant at the time
of the commencement of this action had no right,
title or interest in or to any of the remainder of said
tract of land embraced in said Survey No. 573, and
never had any right, title or interest in or to any of
the remainder of said tract.
II.
That the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment herein,
decreeing them to be the owners and entitled to the
possession of all that tract of land embraced in said
Survey No. 573, except the two small tracts above de-
scribed, which are the property of the defendant.
That the plaintiffs are entitled to their costs and dis-
bursements in this action. To all of which defend-
ant excepts and exception is allowed.
Done in chambers this 31st day of August, 1908.
ROYAL A. GUNNISON,
Judge.
[Endorsed] : Original. No. 547-A. In the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1,
at Juneau. G. W. Hinchman et al.. Plaintiff, vs.
Solomon Ripinsky, Defendant. Conclusions of Law.
Filed Aug. 31, 1908. C. C. Page, Clerk. By A. W.
Fox, Deputy. Shackleford & Lyons, Attorneys for
Plaintiff. Office: Juneau, Alaska.
G. W. Hinchman et dl. 47
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1, at Juneau.
G. W. HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE,
JOHN G. MOREISON, J. A. NETTLES,
COETEZ FORD, TOM VALEUR, R. M.
ODELL, D. BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER,
IDA JOHNSON, M. E. HANDY, FRED
HANDY, G. C. DE HAVEN, TIM CREE-
DON, BENJAMIN A. MAHAN, THOMAS
DRYDEN, ED. FAY, JAMES FAY, H.
FAY, W. W. WARNE, THOMAS VOGEL,
C. BJORNSTAD, H. RAPPOLT, KAREN
BJORNSTAD, M. V. McINTOSH, MARY
V. McINTOSH, JESSE CRAIG, E. A.
ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A. J. DENNER-
LINE, S. J. WEITZMAN, PETER JOHN-
SON, MRS. KATE KABLER and V.
READE,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Plaintiffs,
Defendant.
Decree.
Now on this day this cause coming on to be heard
on the findings of fact and conclusions of law here-
tofore entered herein by this Court, and this cause
having been referred to a referee for the purpose of
taking and reporting the testimony herein to this
Court, and the said referee having taken all testimony
offered in behalf of all parties hereto and submitted
48 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
the same to this Court; and the Court thereafter,
after considering all of said testimony and pleadings
herein, rendered its decision herein, and thereafter,
having made its findings of fact herein and rendered
its conclusions of law, which findings of fact and con-
clusions of law are now of record herein, and the
Court having directed that a decree be entered in
favor of the plaintiffs herein, in accordance with said
findings of fact and conclusions of law aforesaid, it
is therefore ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs
be and they are hereby decreed to be the owners of
and entitled to the possession of all of the lands em-
braced in Survey No. 573, situated in Haines, Alaska,
and more particularly described as follows, to wit:
Beginning at Cor. No. 1, under Ripinsky's house
from which point U. S. L. M. No. bears S. 6° 45'
W, 2.64 chains distant, witness Cor. bears W. 30 links,
a stone marked S. 573 W. C. 1 ; thence from true Cor.
N. 14° 20' E., along mean high-water mark of Portage
Cove, 2.30 chains to Cor. No. 2, not set witness Cor.
bears W. 30 links, a stone marked S. 573 W. C. 2 ;
thence from true Cor. W. 9.10 chs. to Cor. No. 3, an
iron pipe 3 inches in diam. marked S. 573 C. 3 ; thence
N. 3.16 chains to Cor. No. 4, a granite stone marked
S. 573 C. 4; thence W. 31.27 chs. to Cor. No. 5, a
stone marked S. 573 C. 5 ; thence S. 168 chs. to Cor.
No. 6, a stone marked S. 573 C. 6; thence S. 80° 54'
E. along north line of Presbyterian Mission, 34.00
chs. to Cor. No. 7, an iron pipe marked S. 573 C. 7 ;
thence N. 1.67 chs. to Cor No. 8, an iron pipe marked
S. 573 C. 8; thence E. 623 chs. to Cor. No. 1, the place
of beginning. Magnetic variation at all corners 28°
G, W. Hincliman et al. 49
30' east ; containing 15.40 acres, is within the exterior
boundaries of the town of Haines, in the District of
Alaska.
Save and except two small tracts of land, one 25
by 50 feet, known and described as Lot No. 5, in Block
No. 1, of said town of Haines, and another small
parcel of ground 100 by 150 in the extreme easterly
end of said tract of land embraced in said survey No.
573, on which said land tract of 100 by 150 feet is
situated a store building, belonging to the defendant,
and a small garden.
And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the defendant has, no right, title, interest or pos-
session in or to any of the remainder of the land em-
braced in said Survey No. 573, excepting the two
small tracts heretofore described.
And it is further considered, ordered, adjudged
and decreed that the plaintiffs do have and receiver
of and from the defendant their costs and disburse-
ments in this action, taxed at Four Hundred and
Nineteen 35/100 dollars ($419.35). To all of which
defendant excepts and exception is allowed.
Done in chamber this 31st day of August, 1908.
ROYAL A. GUNNISON,
Judge.
[Endorsed] : Original. No. 547-A. In the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1,
at Juneau. Geo. W. Hinchman et al., Plaintiff, vs.
Solomon Ripinsky, Defendant. Decree. Filed Aug.
31, 1909. C. C. Page, Clerk. By A. W. Fox, Deputy.
Shackleford & Lyons, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Of-
fice : Juneau, Alaska.
50 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
PageSa— Schedule ''C."
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division No. 1, Juneau.
No. 547-A.
Report of Referee.
G. W. HINCHMAN et aL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOL. RIPINSKY,
Defendant.
Index, Statement of Official Acts, and Certificate [of
Referee].
Schedule ''A."
Rec'd from U. S. Com. at Skagway, and filed Sept.
25, '07.
Plaintiffs' Exhibits Nos. 2 to 96, inclusive.
Schedule "B."
Defendant'? Exhibits 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14.
Exceptions of Deft, to Plffs. Exs. 3-95 inc. filed Aug.
5th, '07.
Schedule '^C."
REPORT OF TESTIMONY.
Page 3b.
Schedule " C "—Continued.
Page 1. Title of Cause.
2. Oath required by Sec. 366, Chap. Thirty-
six, A. C.
4. Stipulation as to Testimony of Davidson
taken.
G. W. Hinchinan et al. 51
10. Plaintife's Exhibit No. 1 Marked in Evi^
dence.
20. Hearing called at Skagway July 6, 2 :30
P. M., and stipulation in reference
thereto taken. H. Fay sworn, etc.
141. Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2 marked in evi-
dence— ^testimony cont.
186. Hearing continued on July 8th, ."
231. Interpreter sworn for native witnesses.
337. Plaintiff reads in evidence complaint,
amended answer, verdict and judgment
in cause No. 868, and in the same appear
in this schedule at pp. 631 to 640 inc.,
marked Exs. Nos. 97, 98 and 99.
340. Stipulation of counsel relative to admis-
sion of Abstracts of Title of Plaintiffs
in Schedule '*A."
345. Defendant's Exhibit No. 7 (the Dickin-
son deed).
547. Stipulation as to testimony of Wm. Dick-
inson.
568. Hearing concluded at Skagway, 5 :30 A.
M., July 9th, '07.
569. Hearing resumed at Juneau under stipu-
lation, Jul.y 13th.
618. Stipulation as to testimony of Penglase,
Ruud and Davidson, and as to filing
briefs herein.
619. Hearing resumed; testimony of Euud
taken July 17th.
52 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
622. Hearing resumed ; testimony of Penglase
taken July 19tli; also additional testi-
mony of Davidson — hearing closed.
28. Witnesses sworn pp. 5, 20, 76, 97, 118, 129,
186, 231, 242, 246, 249, 262, 266, 268, 270,
272, 279, 293, 305, 310, 318, 342, 389, 458,
569, 522, 619.
Headings in Index :
dx — direct examination.
ex — cross-examination.
rdx — redirect examination.
rex — recross-examination.
reb — rebuttal examination.
[Referee's] Certificate [to Report].
Page 3c.
United States of America,
District of Alaska, — ss.
I, L. R. Gillette, the duly appointed and qualified
Referee appointed by the Court in Cause No. 547- A,
hereinabove entitled, to report the testimony in said
cause, hereby certify that pursuant to said appoint-
ment I duly took and subscribed the oath of office
required by law prior to entering on the performance
of my duties of such office, to wit, on the 5th dsij of
July, 1906;
That I thereafter called said matter for hearing
pursuant to the order of reference herein and under
and pursuant to the stipulations of counsel in that
behalf, as set forth in detail in schedules "A," "B"
and "C" herewith submitted:
G. W. HincJiman et al. 53
That said schedule "A" contains all of the exhibits
offered and marked on behalf of the plaintiffs at the
several hearings; Schedule "B" all of the exhibits
offered and marked on behalf of the defendant at the
several hearings, and Schedule "C" a full, true and
correct transcript of the testimony in said cause as
taken down by me in shorthand notes at said several
hearings, and thereafter transcribed into typewrit-
ing;
That each and all of the witnesses called by the re-
spective parties were by me, in each instance, first
duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth touching the matter then in
hearing, and thereupon gave their testimony as said
Schedule "C" set forth (save the witness F. A.
Rogers, whose deposition was read into the record).
Dated at Juneau, Alaska, this 12th day of August,
1907.
Respectfully submitted,
L. R. GILLETTE,
Referee.
[Endorsed]: Original. No. 547-A. In the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Alaska, Division No. 1.
G. W. Hinchman et al.. Plaintiffs, vs. Sol. Ripinsky,
Defendant. Index, Statement and Certificate to Re-
port of Referee. Filed Aug. 22, 1907. C. C. Page,
Clerk. By R. E. Robertson, Asst. Attorneys for
. Office : Juneau, Alaska.
54 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
[Schedule **C" of Report of Referee— Testimony.]
In the District Court for the District of Alaska,
Division Number One, at Juneau.
No. 547- A.
G. W. HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE,
JOHN G. MORRISON, J. A. NETTLES,
CORTEZ FORD, TOM VALEUR, R. M.
ODELL, D. BUTRICH, E. J. BERGER,
IDA JOHNSON, M. E. HANDY, FRED
HANDY, G. C. DE HAVEN, TIM CREE-
DON, BENJAMIN A. MAHAN, THOMAS
DRYDEN, ED. FAY, JAMES FAY, H.
FAY, W. W. WARNE, THOMAS VOGEL,
C. BJORNSTAD, H. RAPPOLT, KAREN
BJORNSTAD, M. V. McINTOSH, MARY
V. McINTOSH, JESSE CRAIG, E. A.
ADAMS, J. W. MARTIN, A. J. DENNER-
LINE, S. J. WEITZMAN, PETER JOHN-
SON, MRS. KATE KABLER, and V.
READS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SOLOMON RIPINSKI,
Defendant.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 55
Testimony and Report of Referee.
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs, Messrs. SHACKLEFORD &
LYONS.
For the Defendant, R. W. JENNING^S, Esq.,
Messrs. MALONY & COBB.
L. R. GILLETTE, Referee, Juneau, Alaska.
Oath of Referee.
United States of America,
District of Alaska, — ss.
L. R. Gillette, being first duly sworn, on oath de-
poses and says :
I will support and defendant the Constitution of
the United States, and I will well and faithfully per-
form the duties of Referee to take and report the
testimony to the Court in the cause No. 547- A in the
District Court for the District of Alaska, Division
No. 1, at Juneau, entitled G. W. Hinchman et al.,
vs. Solomon Ripinsky, upon which I am about to
enter, and therein do equal justice to all men, to the
best of my knowledge and ability. So help me God.
[Seal] L. R. GILLETTE.
Taken and subscribed before me this 5th day of
July, A. D. 1907.
T. R. LYONS,
Notary Public for Alaska.
(See separate Index for page 3, L. R. G., Referee.)
[Report of Referee.]
Be it remembered : that on the request of Thomas
R. Lyons, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, and R. W.
56 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
Jennings, Esq., attorney for the defendant, in the
foregoing entitled cause, the undersigned as Referee
in said cause, attended at the office of Messrs. Shack-
leford & Lyons in the City of Juneau, Alaska, at the
hour of 9 o'clock P. M., of July 5th, 1907, there being
present at the said time and place the said attorneys
and one C. E. Davidson, Esq., called to testify as a
witness in said cause on behalf of the plaintiffs;
whereupon the following proceedings were had:
[Stipulation Concerning Testimony of Charles E.
Davidson.]
By Mr. LYONS, Attorney for Plaintiffs.— It is
hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the
parties to this case and their respective counsel, that
the testimony of Charles E. Davidson may be taken
on behalf of the plaintiffs at this time and place under
the order of reference duly made and entered in this
cause on the 19th day of June, A. D. 1907, on the oral
examination of counsel for the respective parties,
with the same force and effect as if the said witness
appeared before the Referee herein at Skagway,
Alaska, on the 8th day of July, 1907, as provided in
the order of reference herein ; and the respective par-
ties and their attorneys hereby waive all objection to
the taking of testimony of said witness at this time
and place, and all of the testimony and evidence given
by said witness and introduced at this time shall be
transcribed into the record herein by the Referee
herein as the first witness on behalf of the plaintiffs
with like force and effect as if the same had been
given in all respects conformable to the provisions of
the order of reference herein ; further, that this stipu-
G. W. Hinchman et al. 57
lation shall be b}^ the referee copied into the record
preceding the testimony of the witness Davidson, and
the formality of signature thereto is hereby waived
by the parties and their attorneys.
Whereupon the Referee took and subscribed the
Oath of Office found on page 2 [p. r. 55] of this Re-
port.
[Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.]
CHARLES E. DAVIDSON, being first duly sworn
to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth touching the matter in hearing, testi-
fied as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. T. R. LYONS.— State your name, resi-
dence, and occupation^
A. Charles E. Davidson; residence, Juneau,
Alaska; occupation. United States Deputy Land and
Mineral Surveyor.
Q. Have you ever been at Haines, Alaska, Mr.
Davidson? A. I have.
Q. When was the first time you ever visited
Haines? A. In 1897.
Q. And have you visited Haines frequently since
then? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what the population of the town
of Haines is, Charley, approximately?
Objected to by counsel for the defendant as ir-
relevant and immaterial.
A. No, I do not.
Q. Did you ever make a survey of any portion of
the town of Haines? A. I did.
Q. For whom? A. Sol Ripinski.
58 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Q. The defendant in this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you make that survey*?
A. I can't tell you exactly — two or three years
ago; I can't give j^ou the exact date.
Q. Do you know what he had that survey made
for? A. For patent.
Q. What was the area of the tract included
within the exterior boundaries of that survey?
A. I don't know Tom; don't remember just what
the area was.
Q. You made the survey for patent, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. For patent as a homestead? A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any other survey of that ground
except the one you made for Ripinsky?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes.
Q. When did you make that survey?
A. February, 1907.
Q. For whom did you make that survey?
A. For the citizens of the town of Haines.
Q. I now hand you the second amended com-
plaint in this action, to which is attached a tracing
and plat, and ask you if you ever saw that plat be-
fore? A. I have.
Q. What is it, Mr. Davidson?
A. It is a tracing showing the Sol Ripinsky sur-
vey and the lots in conflict.
Q. What is that tracing taken from?
A. That tracing was made by me; the original
G. W. Hindi man et dl. 59
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
was made from the field-notes of the Sol Ripinsky
survey, and the lots were put on there from a sur-
vey I made on the ground.
Q. Describe, now, the tract of Ripinsky for which
he applies for patent?
A. Do you want me to give the notes of if?
Q. Yes.
A. Beginning at Corner No. 1, thence running
north 14° 20' east—
Q. Can you locate that corner, Mr. Davidson?
A. It is marked corner number one —
Q. I mean can you locate it more definitely, with
reference to its location on the ground?
A. Yes; beginning at corner number one, on the
beach, thence running north 14° 20' east 151.8 feet
— you see I changed these distances here from chains
into feet.
Q. That's all right; go ahead?
A. — to corner number two; thence W. 600.06
feet to corner number three; thence north 208.5 feet
to corner number four; thence W. 2063.8 to corner
number five; thence south — that course isn't on
there — the distance; just put it south blank feet to
corner No. 6, and I will put that in later from the
notes; thence south 85° 54' east along the Mission
Tract 2244.00 feet to corner No. 7; thence north 110.2
feet to corner number eight; thence east 411.00 feet
to corner number one and the place of beginning.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — This corner down here is
number nine on my blue-print.
60 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
A. No, it should be seven; that is a mistake, and
I will change that.
By Mr. LYOXS. — Have you completed the de-
scription? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you tie Corner Xo. 1 to?
A. A United States Mineral Monument.
Q. Where?
A. I didn't put the course on here although it is
given in the notes — it is right close to corner num-
ber one.
Q. And that's on the beach?
A. Yes, sir; the monument is on the beach near
corner number one, about a hundred and fifty feet
from it, something like that.
Q. You say this tracing has been taken from the
original plat on file in the United States Land Of-
fice at Juneau, Alaska? A. Yes.
Q. And that map and plat —
A. No, that might be misleading; the tracing was
made from the notes of the survey on file.
Q. And you don't know the area of the tract?
A. I do not; I have the notes of it, but can't state
from memory what the area is.
Q. I wish you would get that.
A. I can give you the area — just leave that
blank. (The area of the tract is 15.4 acres.)
Q. What is the width of the widest jDortion of
the tract?
A. About four hundred and thirty-eight feet —
I can't give it exact.
G. W. Hinchman et ah 61
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Q. How wide is the narrowest portion of the
tract?
A. That 's on that part there, between corner five
and six, that distance is gone.
Q. Well, approximately how^ wide is it?
A. If you have a ruler I can scale it and tell you
— it is sixty feet to the inch. (Measures.) It is
about 100 feet.
Q. When did you first see this tract of land, Mr,
Davidson?
A. Why, I think it was in 1897 — the first time I
was in Haines.
Q. It now^ embraces the greater portion of the
town of Haines, does it not?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and on
the further ground it is assumed there is a town of
Haines and there is nothing to show such a tow^n
exists in law or in fact.
A. Well, if you mean the greater part of the
buildings, it does.
Q. You made a subdivisional survey of the tract,
did you not, showing the holdings of the different
occupants of the premises in dispute?
A. Yes.
Objected to on the ground the question assumes
there are occupants when there is no evidence to
that effect.
Q. Well, nearly all of the tract embraced within
the exterior boundaries of this survey is settled upon
by town-lot occupants, is it not?
62 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
A. Why most of the people — most of the lots
have buildings on them — the greater part of the lots.
Q. Now, I again call your attention to the trac-
ing attached to the second amended complaint of
the plaintiffs in this case, and ask if the subdivi-
sional survey indicated on that plat was actually
made on the ground by yourself? A. It was.
Q. And is this plat made up from the field-notes
of the survey made at the time ?
A. Yes, made from the field-notes.
Q. Where does Sol Ripinsky, the defendant, live
as indicated on this tracing'?
A. He lives on the east end of the Ripinsky
Homestead near the beach — well, I can change that
answer this way. He lives near the beach, perhaps
fifty feet from the beach.
Q. How much of the tract embraced within the
exterior boundaries of the survey — what is the num-
ber*? A. U. S. Survey No. 573—
Q. — does the defendant Ripinsky actually oc-
cupy?
Objected to until it be shown what is meant by
the word "occupy" and whether the witness knows
of his own knowledge.
A. If you mean what his houses cover, it is only
a very small portion of it.
Q. About what is the area —
A. It is only a very small piece his houses cover,
and he has a small garden there, not very much.
Q. Is it correctly represented on this exhibit or
tracing *?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 63
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
A. Well, I don't know as it is correctly repre-
sented on that tracing what he actually occupies.
A.S far as his buildings, they are down there near
the beach; but of course he may occupy the whole
business some way, as well as where his houses are.
Q. What I mean Mr. Davidson, is this: How far
from the southerly end of the tract do you find the
first occupant holding adversely to Ripinsky'?
Objected to as calling for the conclusion of the
witness as to "adverse occupation," and he hasn't
shown himself qualified to answer the question.
A. If you mean where the lots commence, it is
two hundred and eiglity-three feet.
Q. North?
A. On one side, well, now, this is east — you have
got your question mixed on that.
Q. Now, I call your attention, Mr. Davidson, to
the tract on this tracing marked "Ripinsky Home-
stead," and I ask you now what is the area of that
tract?
A. Do you mean that portion not covered by the
lots?
Q. Exactly? A. A little over two acres.
I now offer this tracing attached to the sec-
ond amended complaint of the ^Dlaintiffs herein and
which has been referred to and described by the wit-
ness, in evidence, and ask that it be marked Plain-
tiffs' Exhibit No. 1.
Marked "Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, Cause No.
547-A, L. R. Gillette, Referee."
No objection.
64 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Q. I will leave the exhibit attached to the com-
plaint. Now, calling your attention again Mr.
Davidson to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, 1 will ask you
what is represented on that plat?
A. It represents streets, lots, and blocks and
houses, as claimed by the residents of Haines, I sup-
pose.
Q. What represents the buildings on this plat?
A. The shaded squares.
Q. Do you know whether or not all those shaded
squares represent buildings which are occupied?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You know, as a matter of fact, most of them
do?
A. I think most of them do; but I suppose there
are a lot of them there is nobody in — at least I
didn't see anyone.
Q. Haines is laid out as a town, is it not?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial to an}^
of the issues in this case.
A. Why, streets, lots, and blocks have been laid
out.
Q. And a great many people live there do they
not? A. Yes, quite a good number.
Q. And it is laid out as a regular village or town,
is it not, Mr. Davidson —
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
— and the tract of land included with the ex-
terior boundaries of U. S. Survey No. 573 includes
nearly all of the business and residential portion of
the town of Haines, does it not?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 65
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Objected to as inunaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, a greater part of the business and resi-
dents are on that tract.
Q. You say you don't know the date you made
that survey for Mr. Ripinski'?
A. No, I don't remember now.
Q. Did you ever make any other survey of this
same tract for him ? A. No.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. R. W. JENNINGS.— Now, Mr. Davidson,
you're a duly commissioned and authorized, regu-
lar deputy U. S. surveyor? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were when you made out this tracing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When Mr. Ripinski wanted his land surveyed
for a homestead, he had to have a regular deputy
United States surveyor didn't he?
A. Yes, sir, for patent.
Q. And you surveyed his claim for him, did you
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, from what did you survey that claim —
where did you get his location notice?
A. I got it from the records.
Q. The records where?
A. I don't know where I located it or looked it
up, but of course I looked it up — don't remember
where I got it from.
Q. What I mean is, what city, what place was it
where you got the record?
A. That's what I say; I don't remember whether
I got the notices here or at Skaguay.
66 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Q. Well, do you know — would you know that de-
scription if you should see it again?
A. I think I would.
Q. I hand you a paper headed "Notice of Loca-
tion of Homestead," on which is endorsed — first I
will hand the paper to the Referee and have it
marked Defendant's Exhibit "A" or No. 1 for Iden-
tification. (So marked.)
Now, I hand to the Referee another paper which
I will have marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 2 for
Identification. (So marked.)
And also another paper, which I will have marked
Defendant's Exhibit No. 3 for Identification. (So
marked.)
Now, I hand you three papers that have been
marked by the Referee as defendant's identifications
numbers one, two, and three, and ask you if it was
from the description in those location notices that
you got what you wanted for this survey — the data
for this survey?
A. I think this is the one I took it from.
Q. The one marked "Defendant's Exhibit No. 3
for Identification"?
A. That's three — yes; I think this is the one I
got it from.
Q. Well, is not that the same as numbers one
and two, the description?
A. Practically the same thing I guess.
Q. Now% Mr. Davidson, the rules and regulations
of your department, and under which you act, and
G. W. Hinchman et al. 67
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
tlie Act of Congress, require that a homestead shall
be laid out on a north and south line, does it not?
Objected to as calling for the conclusion of the
witness as to a question of law, the Act of Congress
and the regulations themselves being the best evi-
dence.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — I simply wish to show — it
is perfectly apparent that Sol Ripinski would never
want to claim such a shaped tract as that for a home-
stead in an oblong shape like that, and that the sur-
veyor had to lay the tract out under his instructions
and the law, in that shape on account of conditions
on the ground. Answer the question.
A. Yes, north and south, east and west, except-
ing where bounded by a previous survey, or where
the tract is bounded by a tract that has been sur-
veyed for patent, or where the tract is bounded by
a meanderable body of water.
Q. Now, I notice that one side of this survey of
Sol Ripinski adjoins the tract called the '' Mission
Tract" — is that line north and south? A. No.
Q. Or east and west? A. No.
Q. Why?
A. Because it is along the line of a previous sur-
vey.
Q. One that had already been made?
A. Yes, sir, I ran along the Mission survey.
Q. Then, in order to get — I'll ask you if you then
surveyed the tract described in this Defendant's Ex-
hibit No. 3 for identification, as nearly as it was pos-
sible to do so to conform to the rules and regulations
68 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
that you should run the lines north and south, east
and west?
Objected to on the ground that the survey itself,
and the law, will enable the Court to determine
whether or not the law and the regulations have
been complied with.
Q. I S8ij, you surveyed this tract, and have
platted it as near as possible to conform to the rules
and regulations requiring you to turn the lines north
and south, east and west, except where the tract is
bounded by an already approved survey or a mean-
derable body of water? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And also this tract shown on Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit No. 1, between corners numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
7, and 8, is a true and correct survey of the land
claimed by Sol Ripinski as near as it could be made
comfortable to the rules of the department and the
Homestead Act, is it not?
Objected by plaintiffs on the same ground as last
above mentioned.
A. Yes, sir, as near as I could get it on there.
Q. And that plat you made has been approved
by the department?
A. Yes, it has been approved.
Q. And is the plat and survey numbered 573?
A. It is.
Q. Now, then, when did you make the survey
and plat of survey No. 573?
A. I can't say the date.
Q. Well, about when?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 69
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
A. I think it was in 1904, I wouldn't be certain;
I make so many of these surveys.
Q. Now, corner No. 1 of this survey, you say be-
gins on the beach there? A. Yes.
Q. It begins at a large rock there on the beach,
which is a United States monmnent, doesn't it?
A. No, that isn't corner No. 1; there is a tie runs
from that.
Q. How far is it from corner No. 1 to the Initial
Momunent ?
A. About a hundred and fifty to two hundred
feet.
Q. You know there is a big rock down there on
the beach? A. Yes, that's a monument.
Q. A well known landmark down there?
A. Yes.
Q. Very large rock? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you say you made this plat and survey
for Sol Ripinski some time in 1904?
A. I think it was in 1904.
Q. Now, subsequently to that, Mr. Lyons, the
attorney for the plaintiffs, or the plaintiffs them-
selves, employed you to make another survey to
show what is claimed by his clients the plaintiffs in
this case, in conflict within the lines of this U. S.
Survey No. 573? A. Yes.
Q. And then you went up there and made the
survey, and have platted it, and those plats claimed
by the plaintiffs are shown on this map that you
have been testifying about. Plaintiff's Exhibit
No.l? A. Yes.
70 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Cliaiies E. Davidson.)
Q. You have spoken, Mr. Davidson, somewhat
generally about the citizens of Haines, and about this
map showing generally streets, and alleys, and lots
and blocks claimed by the citizens of Haines; you
don 't know of your own knowledge that there is any
town of Haines do joii — I mean any regular town-
site of Haines?
A. I know they claim it is a townsite.
Q. Do they claim they have had any townsite
survey ?
A. No, it never has been surveyed for a townsite.
Q. As a matter of fact, all you know is that there
is a cluster of houses up there called the town of
Haines? A. Yes, I suppose that's all.
Q. You don't know how those houses came to
hnilt or who built them, do you? A. No.
Q. Nor when they were built? A. No.
Q. Except that there are some houses there, some
of which are occupied by people and some of which
are vacant, isn't that the fact?
A. Yes, some are vacant and some occupied.
Q. And Mr. Lyons asked you how much of that
tract Mr. Ripinsky occupies ; you don't know or don't
undertake to say how much he occupies or claims?
A. No.
Q. You understand a person don't have to ac-
tually occupy all the land he claims, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You understand a man's buildings might
occupy one acre, and yet as a matter of fact he may
occupy ten acres — you understand that, don't you?
G. W. Ilinchman et al. 71
(Testinion}^ of Charles E. Davidson.)
A. Yes.
Q. You never platted any town of Haines, did
you?
A. No, I never made any survey of the town of
Haines itself more than this.
Q. And you don't know of any streets and alleys
in that town except what these people claim are
streets and alleys?
A. They showed me a plat, which I had to go by.
Q. Do you know anything about that plat ?
A. Xo.
Q. Just showed you a drawing of what they
claimed was the town? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you took their word as a fact, that what
is marked "third avenue" on there is third avenue?
A. Yes.
Q. And 3'ou took their word as to the width of
the streets and the line of the streets there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Beyond what somebody told you, you don't
know anything about that at all, do you ?
A. No.
Q. What did you say was. the area of this tract ?
A. I didn't say — don't remember.
Q. Do you know whether it is as much as fifteen
acres ?
A. It is about that I think; somewhere in that
neighborhood. I have the notes and can give you the
area later.
Q. Now, I hand you a blue-print, which I ask the
Eeferee to mark Defendant's Exhibit No. 4 for
72 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon}^ of Charles E. Davidson.)
Identification. (So marked.) I hand you this blue-
print which the Referee has marked Defendant's
Identification No. 4 and ask you what that is ?
A. Why that is a map showing the Sol Ripinski
homestead.
Q. It is a blue-print ?
A, Yes, sir, of the tracing marked Plaintiffs No.
1, exce^Dting that there is a little mark — that's all
right ; it is a blue-print of that tracing.
Q. It is identical with that tracing, is it not ?
A. Yes, it is the same.
Q. Virtually, a photograph of the tracing.
A. Yes ; or better still, a print of it.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — I call your attention to Plain-
tiffs' Exhibit No. 1; that part marked "Main
Street"; that is an actually traveled thoroughfare,
is it not, Mr. Da\ddson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. A well-defined street, is it not ? A. Yes.
Q. From one end of it to the other?
A. Yes.
Q. How about "Sixth Avenue"?
A. Sixth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Fourth Avenue,
and Third Avenue are not traveled very much; not
very much travel there, but they are laid out, there is
a vacancy left for the streets ; and Second Avenue is
a thoroughfare, that is, First and Second Avenues or
Second Avenue and First Street are traveled the
most.
Q. But Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Avenues,
you say, are not traveled very much? A. No.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 73
(Testimony of Charles E. Davidson.)
Q. But they have been left vacant by the people
of Haines for the purpose of streets and thorough-
fares ?
A. They told me they were left for streets.
Q. And they are traveled by people and used as
such ?
A. Oh, yes, they are traveled to some extent.
Q. And this exhibit. Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1,
shows the land and the houses, and the streets, blocks,
and lots just as they are on the ground?
A. Yes.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Oh, I forgot to ask you,
Mr. Davidson ; do you know where the, what is called
the Indian village is at Haines ? A. Yes.
Q. Well, how far to the north of Corner No. 2 of
the Eipinski Homestead does that village begin?
A. It is right close there.
Q. The Indian village, I mean; not any other
houses but the Indian village ?
A. Well, there are some houses here (indicating)
and then comes the Indian village not far from it —
I couldn't tell exactly how far it is.
Q. Do you know where an Indian named Blind
Isaac lives there ?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
And be it further remembered that thereafter, at
Skagway, Alaska, at the hour of 2:30 P. M. of the
6th day of July, 1907, at the U. S. Courthouse, the
said matter was again called for the taking of testi-
mony on behalf of the respective parties before L. R.
74 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
Gillette, the referee herein, there being present:
Thomas E. Lyons, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs;
E. W. Jennings, Esq., attorney for the defendant;
L. E. Gillette, referee, and sundry witnesses for the
plaintiffs and defendant.
Whereupon the following proceedings were had :
By Mr. JENNINGS.— It is stipulated and agreed
by and between the parties and their attorneys that
the taking of testimony in this cause ma}^ be begun
at this time and place, and no objection shall be urged
at the hearing because the taking of the testimony
was taken before the date set in the order of refer-
ence herein, but the same may be by the Eeferee
taken and transcribed into the record with the same
force and effect as if all of such testimony were be-
gun and taken beginning on the 8th instant as in
said order of reference provided.
[Testimony of H. Fay, for the Plaintiffs.]
Whereupon H. FAY, being called as a witness for
the plaintiffs and first duly sworn according to law,
testified as folloW'S on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LjYONS. — Please state your name, resi-
dence, and occupation.
A. H. Fay; residence, Haines, Alaska; occupa-
tion, merchant.
Q. How long have you resided in Haines, Alaska ?
The defendant at this time objects to the taking of
any testimony at all in this case on behalf of the
plaintiffs, on the ground and for the reason that the
G. W. Hinchman et al. 7d
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
complaint herein does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, or to entitle the plaintiffs
to the relief sought, or to any relief.
A. Since 1897.
Q. Do you know what the population of the town
of Haines is ?
Objected to by the defendant as irrelevant and
immaterial.
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know substantially what the popula-
tion is ?
A. Well, I might approximate it; does that in-
clude the native population?
Q. Yes, the whole population?
A. Well, I should judge about five or six hundred.
Q. Now, what is approximately the white popula-
tion? A. About two hundred.
Q. Now, when did you first go to Haines ?
A. December 14th, 1897.
Q. Have you resided there continuously ever
since? A. I have between there and Chilkat.
Q. Have you had a business establishment or resi-
dence in Haines since you first came there in Decem-
ber, 1897? A. I have.
Q. You have maintained a business establishment
there ever since that time, have you?
A. I hadn't started business there at that time,
but I maintained a place —
Q. Just describe generally the character of
Haines, the nature and character of the ground that
76 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
is now covered or included within the limits of
Haines ?
Objected to as irrelevant and inunaterial, and for
the further reason that there is no evidence that there
are any limits to Haines or any town or settlement
there that has any limits.
A. Well, when we went there, there were no white
people then living at Haines, and there had been a
little excitement or talk in regard to a railroad start-
ing from Haines and on the strength of that we went
from Ohilkat to locate some lots at Haines.
Q. Where is Chilkat with reference to Haines ?
A. Well, it is a mile and a half from Haines.
Q. Both in tlie first judicial division of the Dis-
trict of Alaska — ^both Chilkat and Haines %
A. Yes, sir. And among the locators, original
locators that located at that time was one Billy Dick-
inson ; that is, he was one of our party. His mother
claimed a little garden spot there, and we took him
along with us to see that we didn 't get on any ground
claimed by them — asked him, you know, where this
property of his mother was, and he showed us this
little garden spot, a little house they had below there
for a store, and a warehouse; we also went over to
the boundaries of the Mission Farm' —
Q. Whom do you include in " we " ?
A. There were about six of us.
Q. Who were they ?
A. Al James, John Penglase; there was a party
by the name of McLoughlin, I forget the first name ;
G. W. Hinchman et al. 77
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
another by the name of Spooner, and myself; and
others I don't remember the names of at this time.
Q. Well, you went there and you located some
town lots ?
A. Yes. Well, before we located, we went over to
the Mission and asked them there if there was any-
one claiming the ground we were going to locate, be-
cause we didn't want to get on any ground that was
claimed by someone else, if it was claimed —
Defendant objects to the answer, and moves to
strike it on the ground that it is a self-serving
declaration.
— and he said the only ground around there —
Defendant objects to the last portion of the answer
as pure hearsay.
— the only ground anyone claimed around there
outside of this little place of Mrs. Dickinson's was
some ground he had cleared in getting fence posts,
etc., for the Mission ground, and if we would just
respect that little piece — it was a small piece there,
probably one or two hundred feet square. So we
started to locate from that, and went towards the
beach in an easterly direction from that —
Q. Just a moment. Who was Billy Dickinson %
A. He was the son of Sarah Dickinson, and they
lived at Chilkat at that time.
Q. Now, you stated that Sarah Dickinson owned
a little garden place close to the beach at Haines?
A. Yes.
Q. And Billy Dickinson is her son?
A. Yes, sir.
78 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Did he take you to this garden and define to
you the limits which she claimed? A. He did.
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incompe-
tent for the reason that Billy Dickinson's acts, if any
such there were, are not competent to bind Mr.
Ripinski, the defendant in this case.
Q. Now, you are familiar with the ground, or the
parcel of ground, in controversy in this action, are
you not ? A. I am.
Q. You have known it how long ?
A. Since — Avell, I have known the ground ever
since I have been there — 1897.
Q. Now, when you went there with others, and
located the lots you have described, what was the
character of the ground at that time as to whether
or not it was covered mth timber, or had it been
cleared ? A. It was all gro^Ti over with timber.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — Are you talking now about
the first time you went there in 1897?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. LYONS. — Describe now, the character of
the timber, Mr. Fay?
A. Well, it was large timber, like that you find in
any ordinary — ^well, you might say waste, in Alaska,
where the growth is thick and there are big trees ; and
the clearing of it was a very hard proposition, very
expensive.
Q. Was the defendant Ripinski living at Haines
when you went there in 1897 ? A. No, sir.
Q. You say that you consulted Billy Dickinson
and the missionary — what was his name?
G. W. Hinchman ct al. 79
(Testimony of H. Fay.) T^'
A. W. W. Warne.
Q. You say you consulted W. W. Warne and
Billy Dickinson as to what ground in that vicinity
was claimed by anyone, and they indicated to you the
garden of Mrs. Dickinson by the beach, and a certain
other parcel of land claimed by Warne — where was
that located with reference to Mrs. Dickinson's?
A. Well, it was located' — let's see — in a westerly
direction.
Q. How far from her?
A. I should judge about five hundred feet. He
also showed us that place, and showed us the Mission
line — of course we didn't know anything about the
line; and we wanted to make our locations so they
wouldii't conflict with the Mission line, or anything
they claimed, or anybody else.
Q. The Mission line lies southerly of the premises
now in controversy ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were these the only two people residing at
Haines from w^hom you could obtain any information
as to property or land owned or claimed in that
vicinity ?
Objected to as leading.
A. Well, Billy Dickinson didn't live at Haines, he
lived at Chilkat ; Mr. Warne lived at Haines.
Q. Were there any people residing at Haines at
that time ?
A. None but the natives, that I can now recall.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiffs ' Exhibit
No. 1, which is a plat attached to the second amended
80 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
complaint in this case, and I ask you if you are
familiar witii the premises described on that plat ?
A. I am.
Q. I call your attention now to the parcel of land
which is inclosed ^^dthin a yellow-shadfed line, which is
conceded to be the tract claimed by the defendant
Ripinski as a homestead, and I ask you what was the
condition of that entire tract when jou went to
Haines in December 14th, 1897 ?
A. Well, it was all covered with timber ; there was
no road of any kind. There was a trail along the
line of the Mission ground and a brush fence, and
there was a house —
Q. Identify that now, Mr. Fay, by where you see
"Main Street" on this exhibit No. 1?
A. This is Main Street along here —
Q. Is that where the trail was ?
A. Yes, sir, there was an Indian trail along there,
and this in here was all covered with heavy timber
all along there, big trees ; and there wasn't a house of
any description around here that I know of other
than the house belonging to Mrs. Dickinson, and the
warehouse.
Q. Where were those buildings'?
A. On the ground here claimed by Mrs. Dick-
inson.
Q. Marked on this Exhibit No. 1 ''Ripinski
Homestead'"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, go on and give a brief history
of the development and settlement and improvement
of that tract, and by whom it was improved and
settled, up to the present date ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 81
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Well, there was a big party of people that
came in around the vicinit}^ of Pyramid Harbor in
1897 called the Perry-Humbert Outfit, I believe, and
there was some talk of a railroad. They brought up
immense stores, that is stocks of goods and livestock,
horses, etc., several — you might say several hundred
tons of it, and it was on the strength of this railroad
talk that we went over and located at Haines. We
made our locations, put up our tents, fenced our
snround and cleared it ; others done the same, put up
buildings, and shortly afterwards I put up a house
there which I subsequently used as a store. The rail-
road bnsiness didn't materialize — they didn't build
the railroad, and things of course died out a little,
and then there wasn't very much excitement there
until the Porcupine excitement.
Q. About when was that *?
A. If I remember right it was the fall of 1898,
Well, that caused a big rush in there. At Chilkat, it
was hard to get freight in in those days, and steam-
ers would go around there such as the ''Walcott" and
^'Rustler," and the ^^Walcott" was stuck in the mud
there at different times and they refused finally to go
around there with freight any more. I was running
a store at Chilkat at the time for Koliler & James, so
we used to receive our freight after that at Haines.
Well, business commenced to pick up a little over
there —
Q. At Haines?
A. Yes, sir ; and people commenced to move over,
the Indians and others ; so in the meantime Kohler &
82 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
James sold out at Chilkat and I started a store at
Haines and had a little branch at Chilkat at the same
time. Well, during all that time different parties
kept coming in, improving the land and building
houses on the place, but during the time from when
the original locators went there to the Porcupine ex-
citement or the strike in the Porcupine there hadn't
been much excitement; as I said, the railroad talk
blew over and died out ; but as soon as the Porcupine
rush was on people commenced to come in there, they
would come down the river and buy supplies and so
on, and —
Q. Now, about how many business houses are
there in Haines to-day ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. I mean business establishments of any kind?
A. Oh, I should judge about twenty-five, approxi-
mately.
Q. What can you say as to what proportion of the
town of Haines is included within this tract claimed
by Eipinski?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and on
the further ground that there is no evidence that
there is any town of Haines.
A. It is the main business portion of the town.
Q. What per cent of the residential and business
portion of Haines is included within that tract ?
Same objection as last above.
A. Well, I should say about ninety per cent of
the business industries are carried on there.
G. W, Hincliman et at. 83
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Is the town or village of Haines surveyed into
lots and blocks, Mr. Fay ?
Objected to on the ground that it is immaterial and
irrelevant, and if there is any such survey, the record
is the best evidence of the survey.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiifs' Exhibit No.
1 and ask 3^ou if that plat correctly indicates the lots
and blocks of the town of Haines and the disputed
tract?
Q. It indicates —
Objected to on the ground that it is immaterial and
irrelevant, and for the reason that no proper founda-
tion is laid; the question as to whether the plat is cor-
rect can only be answered by the person that made it
and has compared the field-notes with the plat and
that the field-notes are correct.
A. The blocks are all right, but the numbers are
not as they were before; the parcels are all right
there. For instance one man he owns you might say
Lot No. 6 ; well, on this plat that would be divided into
six or seven parcels ; but it is otherwise a copy of the
original survey made by Fogelstrom in 1897 for
which we paid for a subdivisional survey. In that
first surve}', for instance if 3"ou had one lot it would
cost you so much to have it surveyed and platted on
that original survey.
^ Referring now to what is marked on Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 1 as Main Street, I ask you what that is
on the ground ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
84 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. It is tlie main street of the town of Haines,
and it is between the Mission line and the town of
Haines.
Q. Well, is it used as a public street by all of the
people of the to^\Ti of Haines ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and be-
cause the term ' ' the people of Haines ' ' is general and
indefinite.
A. It is. The people of Haines have put consid-
erable mone}^ into fixing the road at different times.
Q. That is, Main Street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, can you give approximately the amount
of expenditure that has been made by the people of
Haines in improving Main Street ?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and indef-
inite, the term '^ people of Haines" calling for the
conclusion of the witness.
A. I would approximate it at about ten thousand
dollars.
Q. I now call your attention to what is marked
on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 as "Second Avenue"; is.
that used as a thoroughfare or street by the people of
the town of Haines *?
Objected to for the reasons last above stated.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about ''Third Avenue" as marked on
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 — is that used as a thorough-
fare or street by the people of the town of Haines ?
Same objection as last above.
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 85
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. What can you say with reference to the usage
of Fourth Avenue as, marked on this exhibit, by the
people of the town of Haines as a street or thorough-
fare?
Same objection as last above.
A. Well, of course the street is laid out there, but
there isn't much travel; I don't know^ whether Mr.
Hinclmian goes up that way to his property or not ;
it is used at times, but there isn't a great deal of traf-
fic along that avenue.
Q. But it is laid out as a street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What can you say with reference to Fifth
Avenue on this exhibit No. 1, as, to whether or not that
is used by the people of Haines as a thoroughfare or
street ?
Same objection as last above.
A. It has been used extensively this last seven or
eight years ; there is a good road along there, and you
can go right along here and out Fifth Avenue.
Q. Well, when you say ' ' along here ' ' just indicate
the place you are pointing to, Mr. Fay, so the Referee
can get it in the record ?
A. Main Street road is in good shape and is used
extensively and also the street as marked "Fifth
Avenue" here, and there is a good road there which
has been used extensively and it runs above or north
of this disputed tract and in an easterly direction
back to Second Avenue here. That has been used
quite extensively for several years past for teams and
traffic.
86 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. What can you say about Sixth Avenue — has
that been laid off as a street ?
Same objection as last above.
A. Yes, sir. '.MM
Q. Is it used as a street and thoroughfare by the
people of the town of Haines ?
Same objection as last above.
A. No; there has been a very little traffic along
that street.
Q. Is it laid out as a street ?
A. It is laid oif, yes, sir.
Q. Now, are all of these streets and avenues as
laid out on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 actually laid out
as streets and avenues, Mr. Fay? A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. As indicated on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. II
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give an estimate of the expenditures
that have been made by the occupants or people of
the town of Haines and particularly the occupants of
this tract of land in dispute ?
Objected to as inunaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, approximately I believe I could.
Q. What amount of expenditures have been made
— or approximately how much — have been made on
this tract in dispute by the occupants of town lots
thereon ?
Same objection as last above.
A. Approximately, I should judge about fifty
thousand dollars.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 87
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Do you now refer to the construction of build-
ings and improvements, or do you also include the
clearing of the land ?
A. Clearing and building.
Q. Has all that tract been cleared ?
A. No, sir.
Q. What portion of it is still uncleared ?
A. I should say this portion down here.
Q. Indicate by some description to the Referee,
what portion %
A. The westerly end of this tract here, nobody
has located on that ground, it being in an undesir-
able place down here, being a swamp, and that hasn't
been cleared at all, other than people would go there
to get their wood — it was handy for that after all this
had been cleared.
Q. You refer to the most westerly end of Block
No. 6 as indicated on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all the rest of the disputed tract has been
cleared % A. Yes, sir.
Q. And built upon ?
A. Well, it hasn't all been built upon. There was
houses on every lot in this place here in dispute, and
we had a forest fire in 1903 that destroyed I should
say approximately forty houses there along this
strip ; the fire started, I believe, in July and burned
for quite a long time — took quite a long time to save
some of the property here as the water gave out of
the wells and we had teams hauling water from the
beach to protect the property.
88 Solomon Eipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. State whether or not any — or whether or not
the occupants have constructed other buildings on
these lots after the fire of 1903 ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Some of them have.
Q. Are all of the lots which are indicated on
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 occupied at this time by
citizens of Haines?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and indef-
inite.
A. No, sir.
Q. What percentage of them are ?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and indef-
inite.
A. Question withdrawn. I'll ask you, Mr. Fay,
if you can indicate or state what lots as indicated on
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 are actually occupied?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, and be-
cause the map itself shows where the buildings are.
A. These here are occupied and claimed by the
parties whose names appear on the lots in Block No.
1—
Defendant objects to the answer and moves to
strike on the ground that is is not responsive to the
question because the question does not call for who
"claims" the lots, and for the further reason that
this witness is not competent to testify who claims lots
and who doesn't.
Q. Counsel for the plaintiffs agrees to have that
portion of the question stricken — or that part of the
answer as to who claims the lots. Mr. Fay, I wish to
G. W. Hinchman. et al. 89
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
direct your attention to the question as to what lots
are actually occupied on this disputed tract?
A. Well, these are all occupied —
Q. Well, what ones — you merely say these ?
A. All of the lots in Blocks No. 1 and 3, and half
of the lots in Block No. 4; half of the lots in Block
No. 5, and some of the lots in Block No. 6.
Q. When you say half of the lots in blocks one,
two, three, four and five, indicate which half in each
block is so occupied f
A. The southerly half, adjoining Main Street.
Q. How long have these lots been actually occu-
pied by lot owners of the town of Haines ?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and indef-
inite.
A. From December, 1897 — that is some of them ;
some came in later.
Q. Well, can you tell what percentage of the lots,
or what lots were located in December, 1897, and
wdthin the following say three months ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. The lots in Block No. 1 and Block No. 2, the
south half adjoining Main Street, and part of the
north half of Block No. 1.
Q. When were the remaining lots in Block No. 1
located ?
Objected to as immateriial and irrelevant, and no
proper foundation laid.
A. Well, they were located in from 1898 on; at
that time this Porcupine rush started and there was
90 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
an influx of people and. they kept coming and com-
ing—
Q. You say from 1898 on — until when ?
A. Up to the present time.
Q. Well, how recently were any locations made in
Block No. 1?
A. Well, there hasn't been any locations made in
Block No. 1 that I know of for many years.
Q. For how many years ?
A. I can't recall just the time these lots — now,
the parties that own these lots of course will be here
themselves, and I can't say as to that; but these lots
back here, on the north side of Block No. 1 were lo-
cated in December, 1897, and some of these others I
believe were located in 1898 — some of the other lots.
Q. When were the other lots in Block No. 2 lo-
cated, the northerly half of the block ?
A. Well, these lots in Block 2 north of the original
locators were located in 1897 also ; that is, there was —
I don't just remember the amount of ground the par-
ties claimed, but that also was located in 1897.
Q. Well, how many of that northerly tier of lots
in Block No. 2 were located in 1897 ?
Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial and incom-
petent.
A. All of them, since I recall; I stated that only
these ; but I recall now Warne's locations were in that
block and others located there in 1897.
Q. When were the lots in Block No. 3 located *?
A. In 1898 or 1899, I can't remember as to a cer-
tainty, because this excitement started if I remember
G. W. Hinchman et al. 91
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
right in the fall of — the Porcupine excitement — in
the fall of 1898 if I remember right.
Q. When were the lots in Block No. 4 and 5 lo-
cated?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. About the same time I believe, in 1898 and '99.
Q. And the lots in Block No. 6 ?
Objected to on the same ground.
A. Well, they were located — I can't say as to the
year, but there are different people on lots of these
lots now than were originally on there.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Mr. Solomon
Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you first become acquainted with
him? A. In December, 1897.
Q. Where? A. At Chilkat, Alaska.
Q. Was he living at Haines when you first went to
Haines and located the lots as you have described?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did he go to Haines first ?
A. He started in business in Haines first, I be-
lieve, in 1898.
Q. Where
A. Right here; there was a store building and
warehouse ; he started in there.
Q. On the tract marked "Ripinski Homestead"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say you have resided at Haines ever
since December 14th, 1907 ?
A. No, sir; I resided at Chilkat, and made this
92 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
location at Haines in 1897, and was running a store
over there at Cliilkat at the time.
Q. Well, when did you go to Haines to reside,
Mr. Fay? A. In 1898.
Q. What time in the year 1898?
A. In the fall of 1898.
Q. And you have resided there ever since, have
you ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What, if any, improving did the defendant do
on this tract of land in controversy, at any time since
jou first went to Haines?
A. He hasn't done any.
Q. Hasn 't done anything ?
A. Of course he has this store and w^arehouse
here.
Q. Always indicate the tract by some description,
so as to get it in the record, Mr. Fay ?
A. He has a store and warehouse on the easterly
extension of this plat here, below where the lots are
indicated on this map.
Q. And what is that marked ?
A. The ' ' Ripinski ' ' homestead ; yes, sir.
Q. Did he ever improve, or contribute towards the
improvement of any other portion of the premises
included within the exterior boundaries of this tract
now claimed by him as a homestead ?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Well, you have resided there all the time since
1898, Mr. Fay, haven't you? A. Yes.
Q. Well, if he had done any improvements or any-
thing towards appropriating that land, would would
have known it?
G. W. Hinchman et al, 93
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Well, lie lias a piece of ground here lie lias at
different times put improvements on.
Q. What piece of ground is that*?
A. It is marked as Parcel No. 5 in Block No. 1.
Q. And marked "Sol Ripinski"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how he acquired an interest in
that lot?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— There is no objection to the
question if he knows of his own knowledge.
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. LYONS.— How and when?
A. I originally owned the place and sold it to a
man by the name of Bigelow, and he sold it again to
B. A. Barnett, who stated he was Sol. Ripinski's
agent.
Defendant moves to strike the answer as to what
Barnett stated about agency.
Q. Did you talk with Mr. Ripinski about that lot ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What conversation did you have with him in
reference to that lot ?
A. Well, frequently we would have occasion to
have some little amusement of some kind in that
building, a dance or something of the kind, and we
always went to Ripinski to rent the place for any
little occasion of that kind we might have.
Defendant moves to strike the answer, especially
as refers to the word "frequently" unless the witness
can fix the date or approximately fix the date.
94 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fa}^)
A. While Barnett bought the building, at least at
that time why we alwa^^s done our business with Rip-
inski, and subsequently^ B. A. Barnett sold it to Rip-
inski.
Q. You originally owned that lot you said?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Located it, did you*? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, state what lots you located in
Haines in 1897, and what you did towards marking
the boundaries of the lots you did claim and locate ?
A. I located the lot here, which is indicated on
this plat in Block No. 1 as numbers four and five.
At that time my locations was 100 feet square.
Shortly after that when we had our town surveyed,
my width was all right; they recognized the lot as
located, 100x100, and all the lots as originally lo-
cated ; but they lengthened the lots out to 140 feet and
took 10 feet off the length of each lot for an alley
way, and they made by lot according to the town
council at the time, we had the map made out and
made the lots 140 feet over all in depth.
Q. One hundred and forty feet from Main Street,
and a hundred and forty feet fronting on Main
Street?
A. Yes, sir, a hundred feet on Main Street, and
then from the north end of Main Street 140 feet was
the north boundary line and then there was ten feet
for an alley — a hundred and fifty feet you might call
it, deep, and ten feet off for the alley.
Q. Leaving you lots then, a hundred and forty
feet from Main Street to the alley ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 95
(Testimony of H. Fay.) ' '^■,
A. To tlie line of the alley, yes, sir.
Q. Now what did you do towards marking the
boundaries of that lot %
A. I cleared the ground, put up a tent, and fenced
the ground.
Q. How did you fence it %
A. I fenced it with wire, putting posts in.
Q. How many strings of wire did you put up ?
A. Well, if I remember, I think it was two; I
can't recall to a certainty.
Q. Did you enclose the entire parcel you located
with that sort of a fence ?
A. Well, I enclosed the whole 140 feet, because
before we had it all cleared the survey was made and
lengthened, the back part to 140 feet and that was all
enclosed.
Q. Then you enclosed the whole lot with a fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you do that?
A. That was done shortly after the lot was lo-
cated.
Q. And have you owned that lot ever since?
A. All except this parcel that has been sold.
Q. To Ripinski? A. No, to Bigelow.
Q. Who afterwards, you say, sold to Barnett, and
Barnett subsequently sold to Ripinski?
A, Yes, sir.
Q. And you still occupy all the remaining por-
tion of that lot, do you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you done towards improving it,
and when did you first begin to improve it?
96 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. I first began to imjDrove it when I located
it, and I now liave a store building on there, a dwel-
ling, and warehouse in front of the dwelling; have
a well on there, and a stable, and use the back part
of it there, this building, partly as a warehouse and
partly as a stable — the back end as a warehouse and
the front as a stable.
Q. When did you first erect a building on that
lot, and what building was itf
A. Why, in — you don't mean the tent I put up
there ?
Q. Well, describe the tent; when did you first
put that up? A. I put that tent up in 1897.
Q. Now, when did you erect your first building
on that lot?
A. And that doesn't include the tent?
Q. Of course not, you have alread}^ testified as
to the tent?
A. The first building I put up was in 1898, and
it was that store building.
Q. Since that you have occupied that parcel of
ground as a home and a place of business, have you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you still occupy it as a home and place
of business? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when Mr. Ripinski first went to Haines,
he saw you there in possession of it, did he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he say anything to you at that time, when
you first went to Haines — that is, when he came
over there? A. No, sir.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 97
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. He didn't lay any claim to it tlien^
A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Fay, you say you first
went on that ground on December Mth, 1897?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that the reason you went there was be-
cause of a big expedition called the Perry-Humbert
Exposition that had arrived at Chilkat, and there
was some talk of a railroad and you went over there
to get some lots to locate, because you thought it
was going to be valuable?
A. Well, there were others there since I went
over.
Q. I'm asking you about yourself; just speak for
yourself — that's what you went there for?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the 14th day of December, 1897?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you fix it as the 14th day of Decem-
ber, 18'97?
A. I recall that because that's the day I arrived.
Q. And that is nearly ten years ago?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know of your ow^n knowledge that
it was not only the year 1897, but that it was the
month of December, and the fourteenth day of that
month? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you swear to that positively?
A. Yes, sir.
98 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. And you are just as certain of that as you
are of anything else you have testified to in this
case*? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of day was it on the fourteenth
day of December when you arrived at Haines?
A. Well, I don't recall as to the time of day.
Q. You remember the day specifically — now,
can't you remember the time of day*?
A. I remember the day of the month, because I
made a memorandum of it.
Q. Have you got that memorandum with you?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. When did you last see it?
A. I haven't seen it for years.
Q. You haven't seen it since the fourteenth day
of December, 1897, have you?
A. Oh, yes, at different times; because my lot
location was dated on the 14th day of December,
1897, and that impressed the date on my mind.
Q. What do you mean by your lot location?
A. When we located our lots there we paid our
money to a man that claimed to have some connec-
tion with the land or recording office at Dyea, and
we got a receipt.
Q. Now, who was that, Mr. Fay?
A. His name was Ostrander.
Q. And John Y. Ostrander was at Haines on the
14th day of December, 1897, was he?
A. No, he wasn't; but our location notices bear
that date.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 99
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Well, what did you say about Ostrander;
when was he there"?
A. No, not Ostrander; I believe it was Hanbury
his name was.
Q. What was his other name?
A. I don't recall now.
Q. What did he look like?
A. I couldn't say.
Q. How old a man was he?
A. I couldn't say as to that.
Q. Did he have a beard? A. I don't know.
Q. Did he have a moustache?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, who else was there beside this man
Hanbury ? A. Tim Yogel.
Q. Do you swear positively that you saw him
there at the time?
A. He was in his building —
Q. Do you mean Hanbury was in Yogel 's build-
ing? A. Hanbury was in Vogel's building.
Q. Did Tim Yogel have a building there at that
time?
A. He had one later on, not in December 14th,
1897; no.
Q. When did Tim Yogel put his building there?
A. I can't recall just at present.
Q. When was Hanbury there in his building?
A. I can't recall as to the date.
Q. How long after you located your lot before
this man Hanbury was there?
A. I can't remember as to the exact time.
100 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. You remember back about December 14th,
1897, specifically and positively, and yet you can't
remember what Hanbury looked like, how old he
was, or when he came there, or when Tim Vogel put
his building there?
A. Well, that's ten years ago, and a man don't
take close and particular observation of every man
he meets.
Q. You mean to swear positively on your oath,
Mr, Fay, that there was ever a man there at Haines
representing himself as an agent of the recorder at
Dyea ? A. Well, we paid him our money.
Q. You paid him your money?
A. We paid him our money.
Q. Who do you mean by we?
A. We locators.
Q. Who else besides yourself paid this man Han-
bury any money, now, Mr. Fay, will you tell me
that? A. Spooner paid him money.
Q. Where is he? A. I don't know.
Q. He's gone, isn't he? A. Yes.
Q. Who else?
A. I speak for myself, let them speak for them-
selves.
Q. Now, sir, you said "we" paid this man Han-
bury our money; I ask you now, sir, who "we" is
and you say yourself and Spooner, and Spooner 's
gone — who else?
A. I can't say positively who else.
Q. You won't swear, sir, that anybody else be-
G. W. HincTiman et al. 101
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
side you and Spooner paid that man money, and
Spooner's gone?
A. I won't exactly swear that Spooner did — I
know I did.
Q. When you said "we" then you meant "I,"
and you won't swear positively now, sir, that any-
body beside yourself paid him money — isn't that the
fact? A. No, I won't.
Q. Mr. Fay, you said you went to Haines on De-
cember 14th, 1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you go there with?
A. I went with Al James for one —
Q. Where is he? A. I don't know.
Q. Is he one of the parties to this suit?
A. No, sir.
Q. He is gone out of the country, isn't he?
A. I don't know.
Q. How long since you have seen Al James?
A. I haven't see him in four or five years.
Q. Who else did you go with?
A. John Penglase.
Q. Where is he ?
A. He is in business at Douglas, I understand.
Q. How long since you have seen him?
A. I don't believe I have seen him in four years,
Q. What was he doing at Chilkat on December
14th, 1897? A. I don't know.
Q. You know he was over there at Haines on
December 14th, 1897, do you — sure of that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else did you go with?
102 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Billy Dickinson.
Q. Where is he? A. I don't know.
Q. How long since you have seen Billy Dickin-
son'?
A. I guess it must be — well, it's a long time.
Q. Well, who else did you go to Haines with?
A. There was a party by the name of McLough-
lin.
Q. Where is he? A. I don't know.
Q. How long since you have seen him?
A. Not for many years.
Q. Is he a party to this suit? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, who else?
A. This man W. W. Warne was there.
Q. That's the same man you have been testify-
ing on direct examination is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. AVho was he?
A. The Presbyterian Missionary at Haines.
Q. Located at Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was he doing at Chilkat on December
14th, 1897?
A. He wasn't at Chilkat, he was at the Mission.
Q. Oh, your party went from Chilkat, and when
you got over to Haines you just took Warne into
your confidence^ that it?
A. No, sir, we went to Warne for advice.
Q. Then you didn't go from Chilkat over to
Haines to locate lots in company with Warne?
A. No, sir.
Q. You struck him at Haines, and he was the
Presl)yterian Missionary in charge of this Mission?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 103
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is Warned
A. Why, I don't know as to a certainty, but the
last time I heard from him he lived somewhere; I
think Norwich, North Dakota.
Q. How long since you have seen this man
Warne? A. Not in many years.
Q. Who else was with you?
A. I named Penglase, Billy Dickinson, McLough-
lin, Warne, and Spooner.
Q. Well, who was Spooner?
A. He was a surveyor — well, I don't know
whether he was with the Perry-Humbert expedition
— some outfit anyway, he was in their employ.
Q. Where is Spooner? A. I don't know.
Q. Gone, isn't he? A. I believe so.
Q. How long since you have heard from SjDooner?
A. I haven't heard from him since he left.
Q. Is he a party to this suit? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, who else went with you?
A. I can't recall the names of the rest.
Q. r The only persons that went with you over on
this locating expedition were the ones you have just
mentioned excepting Warren — and he was already
at Haines — are the only ones you remember?
A. Well, Spooner was at Haines.
Q. Spooner was already at Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The only ones you remember that left Chil-
kat on the 14th day of December, 1897, and came to
104 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Haines to locate lots were yourself, McLonghlin,
Billy Dickinson and Penglasef A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they are not parties to this suit, are they?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right, now, Mr. Fay. You came over there
to Haines because you heard some talk of railroad
at Haines — that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To be instigated, or built, or conunenced by
this Perry-Humbert expedition?
A. Yes, sir, the Perry-Humbert and others —
there was others besides that expedition; there was
railroad talk in connection with —
Q. Didn't you know, sir, at that time that Sol
Ripinski had bought out Mrs. Dickinson's rights to
that land? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't know that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nobody told you that? A. No, sir.
Q. You never saw a deed from Sol Ripinski to
— or a deed from Sarah Dickinson to Sol Ripinski
at the time you went over there? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't Billy Dickinson tell you about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. You swear, sir, that you didn't know a thing
about it? A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. When you got over to Haines did you find —
I believe you testified you didn't find anything but
some houses on this cleared tract now called the
Ripinski Homestead as shown on Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit No. 1?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 105
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Only the natives on tlie beach — I was allud-
ing to the disputed strip.
Q. Well, that's what I'm talking about. Did
you find any buildings on the ground immediatel}^
south of the tract called the Ripincki Homestead?
A. Nothing only the Mission property here — you
allude to the disputed strip?
Q. Did you find anything in the way of improve-
ments to the south of the cleared portion of what
is called the Ripinski Homestead — on the beach
down there sit, south of that and to the north of
the Mission ground? A. Here?
Q. To the south of that and north of the Mission
grounds ?
A. Yes, to the north of the Mission ground.
Q. Did you find any improvements along here?
A. Yes, between here and there.
Q. Between the Ripinski Homestead, between
Corner No. 8 — that is between the line running from
Corner 8 and Corner No. 1 and from the line run-
ning from Corner No. 7 to the beach, did you find
anything in there?
A. There was nothing there other than the tent
I put up on that ground, which I got permission
from Mrs. Dalton to do as we received freight in
there from the Chilkat store.
Q. You got permission from Mrs. Dalton?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she have to do with it?
A. She claimed she bought a half acre from Mrs.
Dickinson, this comes in after you know.
106 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. I am talking, sir, about the 14th clay of De-
cember, 1897?
A. I found nothing there at that time.
Q. Now, you know at that time that Mrs. Dal-
ton claimed that one acre down there, didn't you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Don't you know, sir, as a fact, that Spooner
knew that Mrs. Dalton claimed to have bought that
one acre from Mrs. Dickinson, and that Spooner set-
tled with Mrs. Dalton and bought the land just west
of the line between Corners 7 and 8 on that plat?
A. That was after December 14th, 1897, that we
learned that; we didn't learn that December 14th,
1897 — didn't know Mrs. Dalton had any claim there
at all; but we learned subsequently that Mrs. Dalton
had about a half an acre from Mrs. Dickinson.
Q. What land did McLoughlin locate there?
A. Not any.
Q. What land did McLoughlin locate there?
A. He located the northern part of Block No. 1.
Q. The whole northern part?
A. No, part of the north part; I couldn't be cer-
tain as to the particular lot.
Q. Well, now, you located up here you say. Lot
No. 4 in Block No. 1, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you built some houses there, and have
got them there at this time ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much did your horses cost you?
A. Of course the houses themselves don't repre-
sent a very great expenditure, but —
G. W. Hinchman et dl. 107
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. All right; how much does your interest in
this alleged townsite of Haines represent to you —
how much would you sell out for.
A. Well, I haven't given that a thought — in fact
I haven't anything there to sell.
Q. Hasn't it any value at all?
A. Well, you must admit that I want my own
property and I don't want to sell it as long as the
place suits me.
Q. Can you put a value on it — you can do that
whether you want to sell or not, can't you?
A. No, because I don't want to sell.
Q. It is of such a great value to you that you
wouldn't sell it under any consideration; is that
right ?
A. Well, as long as I like the place I don't want
to sell it, but of course there is such a thing that I
might sell it, yes.
Q. How much pecuniary outlay have you made on
this alleged towTisite, Mr. Fay?
A. I never kept any track of it.
Q. Well, approximate it?
A. Well, I don't—
Q. Understand, Mr. Fay, I don't want to get you
down to a certain price in order to force you to sell
at that and make an offer to you, but just an estimate ?
A. I don't know.
Q. Can't you give us any estimate at all?
A. Of what I consider I have put in there ?
Q. Yes; how much money you have invested in
this alleged townsite or the alleged lot you claim?
108 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. This lot here?
Q. No; all the property that Sol Ripinski is
claiming? A. I don't know, I'm sure.
Q. Well, would you say five thousand dollars?
A. I haven't kept any record of what I have ex-
pended on this property at all, Mr. Jennings.
Q. Mr. Fay, do you mean to tell me you can't ap-
proximate how much this investment stands you
to-day?
Oh, yes, I could guess at it, it would only be ap-
proximately what this investment stands me here —
Q. Well, that's what I want, an approximation, if
you can't give it exactly?
A. Well, I should judge about five thousand dol-
lars.
Q. Now, not only that Mr. Fay ; that is approxi-
mately you think the amount of your financial outlay
at Haines, Alaska ?
A. On this particular property.
Q. In addition you have built up a business, have
you not ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is quite a valuable business for you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You wouldn't want to leave your business
there ? A. No, sir.
Q. And in addition to that have you taken up any
other lots there ? A. No, sir.
Q. Have you made any other financial outlay than
you have stated ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Such as what now ?
G. W. Hlnchman et al. 109
(Testimon}^ of H. Fay.)
A. Well, I have bought a piece of property up
about here a little piece.
Q. That is outside the Sol. Ripinsky tract?
By Mr. LYONS.— That is north of the tract?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— So that if Sol Ripinsky wins
this lawsuit and gets what he claims as his land it
represents to you a loss of at least five thousand dol-
lars in cash and the breaking up of your business,
does it not ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you are substantially and materially inter-
ested in this case, are you not, Mr. Fay ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, you say that since Sol. Rip-
insky— ^since you came there, Sol. Ripinsky never
made any improvements on his piece of land, that is
on the main body of his land,
A. Above where he is doing business, no.
Q. Will you please tell me what you would have
done as an owner or an alleged owner of this parcel
No. 4 in block 1 if Sol. Ripinsky had gone upon the
land you claimed and attempted to make an improve-
ment upon it ?
Objected to by counsel for the plaintiff as imma-
terial and not proper cross-examination.
A. I would certainly ask him by what authority
or right he was going on there.
Q. You would have resisted his coming on there
and trying to improve your land ?
A. I would want to know why he would claim it
and I would certainly claim it.
110 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. You claim tlie ownership of that land f
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You took it up ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you wouldn't consider that Sol Ripinsky
would have any right to come on there and improve
your land ? A. No, sir.
Q. And you would have resisted him, would you
not?
A. Yes, sir ; I would have at least protested.
Q. And so would anybody else that had any
claims; you wouldn't allow Sol. Ripinsky to come on
your land and improve it, would you ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't think it very remarkable that Sol.
Ripinsky claims this land and hasn't improved it —
that he never made any more improvements, do you 1
Objected to by counsel for plaintiff as immaterial
and not proper cross-examination.
A. Well, he didn't claim it.
Q. Just answer my question, Mr. Fay. I'll ask
you another question — Mr. Fay, how could Sol. Rip-
insky make any other improvements than the im-
provements he did make on that particular piece of
land called the Ripinsky Homestead that black space
down here on this exhibit No. 1, when there were
thirty or forty other men up here claiming to own
and have the exclusive possession of these other lots.
Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial and not
proper cross-examination and on the further grounds
that the law defines the method by which one can im-
prove his land — it isn't for the witness to state that.
G. W. Hinchman et al. Ill
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. These lots were not all claimed at that time,
December 14th, 1897.
Q. I am not talking about that Mr. Fay ; you were
asked by Mr. Lyons what other improvements Sol
Eipinsky had made not on December 14th, 1897, but
at any other time. I am asking 3^ou, sir, how Sol.
Eipinsky could make any other improvements outside
of this little tract of land when it was all overrun by
people claiming the other lots.
A. It was never all overrun.
Q. Never overrun wasn't claimed at all was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There are lots then that were not claimed by
anyone ?
A. I stated the west end of this tract there are no
lots marked on it at least not built on.
Q. That 's the only part is it ?
A. Yes, sir, part of block No. 6 there.
Q. Well, Tim Creeden had lots there, didn 't he 1
A. Is it there now, let's see.
Q. Up here ?
A. He has one there now, the original I don't be-
lieve is there.
Q. Was there one there when this plat was made?
A. He says there was.
Q. I am not asking you what he says; will you
tell me what house there was on lot-parcel No. 9 in
block No. 2?
A. There is a fence around this that is marked
W. W. Warne here ; Warne had put that up ; it was
made of long poles piled one on top of the other.
112 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. I didn't ask you about fences; I asked you
what house there was on parcel No. 9 in block No. 2
on Plaintifes' Exhibit No. I'?
A. Well, there was a foundation there of a house.
Q. Does it show on this map'? A. No, sir.
Q. What house is there on parcel No. 10 block 2 ?
A. There is a foundation on that, too.
Q. What do you mean by foundation?
A. I mean these three lots marked W. W. Warne
were enclosed with a fence on each of these parcels
9, 10 and 11, there was a foundation on those.
Q., Now, what house is on parcel No. 12 in block
No. 2? A. Let's see; this is owned bv —
Q. I didn't ask you who it was owned by ; I asked
you what there is on there.
A. There is a residence there.
Q. A residence on that parcel?
A. Just let me explain this; there is two houses
on here —
Q. I am not talking about those ; I am asking you
about parcel No. 12.
A. I want to explain how this was.
Q. I am not talking about parcel No. 14, Mr. Fay,
I am talking about parcel No. 12 in block 2.
A. This is a parcel of ground that belonged to
Carl Bjornstad what is now parcel 12, 13, 14, which
was all enclosed with a fence and these are the houses
that are on this ground and this is all garden here.
Q. What do you mean by this ?
A. On parcel No. 14 are the two houses that are on
G. W. Hinchman ct al. 113
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
this ground and it is all claimed by the one party and
this is all garden they have for these houses.
Q. Then there is nothing on lot 12 in block 2 ?
A. There is a garden.
Q. I didn 't ask you about garden ; I said house.
A. You said anything in the way of improve-
ments, I thought.
Q. Is there anything on lot No. 13 in block 2?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is there a house on parcel 12, in block 3 ?
A. Well, there are lots of houses here. I don't
know for a certainty whether there is a house on here
or not.
Q. Is there is a house on lot 9 in block 3?
A. That's been sold lately and I don't know;
there are some improvements going on, I don't know
for a certainty.
Q. Is there a house on parcel No. 2 in block 5 ?
A. Yes, sir, there was, but in the survey that was
made when these houses were put on their lots — no,
there is no house there.
Q. Is there a house on lot 3 in block 5 ?
A. Well, now, this house you see marked on parcel
No. 1 in block 5 that belongs to this party.
Q. Which party ?
A. This party here, M. E. Handy.
Q. The man whose name appears on parcel No. 2
in block 5 ?
A. In measuring off they didn't get it accurate,
as the surveyor when this house was put on here of
course the man thought he was putting it on the line.
114 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
There are two houses indicated on lot 1 in block 5;
one belongs to the party claiming that lot and the
other to the party claiming lot 2 in block 5.
Q. The party that claims it ? You mean the man
whose name is on this claim the one here 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You swear to that do you?
A. Well, he told me he owned it.
Q. You mean to say M. E. Handy told you he
owned the house on parcel 1 in block 5 f
A. Yes, he ow^ns the house.
Q. And he told you that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. He put the house there — well, when he put it
there he didn't get it with the correct measurements
the surve}' or has put it there it is on this lot but it is
his house.
Q. You swear to that ? A. He told me so.
Q. When did he tell you?
A. I was agent for the man —
Q. Answer my question, when did he tell you
that?
A. Well, I w^anted to tell you how I knew it.
Q. I asked you, sir, when he told you that?
A. Well, the circumstances that surround the
transaction —
Q. I asked you again when he told you — when,
when ?
A. When I turned the house over to him.
Q. When was that ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 115
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. That was about approximatel.y, I should judge,
three or four years ago.
Q. All right, Mr. Fay. Now, is there any house
on parcel 3 in block 51 A. No, sir.
A. Is there any house on parcel No. 12 in block 4 ?
A. No house, but there is a garden there.
Q. Is there any house on parcel 11, block No. 4?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is there any house on parcel 10 in block 4?
A. No, sir.
Q. Parcel 9 in block 4? A. No, sir.
Q. Parcel 7 in block 4 ? A. No, sir.
Q. Parcel No. 12 in block 5 '^ A. No, sir.
Q. Parcel 11 in block 5 ? A. No, sir.
Q. Parcel 10 in block 5 ? A. No ; no house.
Q. Or 9 in block 5?
A. No, not on any of these.
By Mr. LYONS.— On any of what, Mr. Fay?
A. No houses on parcels 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in
block 5.
By Mr. JENKINS.— Is there any house on parcel
5 in block 5 ? A. No, sir.
Q. Is there any house on parcel No. 6 in block 3 ?
A. Yes; there is the remnants of an old baker-
shop there.
Q. Don't you know, Mr. Fay, the man— the sur-
veyor that made this plat, Mr. Davidson, is required
to put on maps and plats any improvements there are
on the property — don't you know that?
Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial and not
proper cross-examination.
116 Solomon Bipinsky m.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. No, I do not.
Q. You don't know anything about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. If he is required to do it he hasn't done it, then,
as I understand you to say ?
Objected to by the counsel for the plaintiff as im-
material, the evidence of the witness and the map
being the best evidence.
A. He has not.
Q. This man, Billy Dickinson, was the son of
Sarah Dickinson, wasn't he?
A. Yes, sir — when I say he hasn't I take it this
way; for instance, you see now there is a house on
lot 5 in block 3. Well, right next to this is the rem-
nants of the old baker-shop. There was a baker who
done business there and part of his building is still
there.
By Mr. LYONS.— That is on lot 6?
A. Yes, sir, lot 6 in block 3 ; and there is no indi-
cation of it on the map nor anything to show it was
on that lot, so it is omitted altogether from the survey.
By Mr. JENNINGrS. — Now, you say you went
there on the 14th day of December, 1897, and found
no one living there except the natives; can you locate
on this Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 about where the na-
tives ' houses were ?
A. Yes, sir ; it was approximately along here.
Q. Well, put a mark there and mark it ' ' N " about
where the natives ' houses began.
A. Well, the natives' houses were along here —
you want me to mark it on the map ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 117
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Yeg, sir; mark it ''N"; I don't expect you to
get it exactly correct but just approximately where
they began, where the Indian village was at the be-
ginning.
A. I don't know where the beginning was at that
time.
Q. You know where the first house was?
A. Well, the Indian village ran along here.
Q. Marked approximately with the letter ''N"
where the first Indian lived along the beach?
A. At that time in 1897?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't know; I didn't go down to investigate
this at all where the Indian houses started in.
Q. Can't you give us any idea about how far it
was the first native house was from the line of the
Mission?
A. No, I couldn't, because as I say on December
14th, 1897, I didn't go down to the Indian village.
Q. How do you know then there wasn't anyone
living down there but Indians?
A. I don't know as to that ; there might have been
white people.
Q. Where was the first house, about how far to
the north of the Mission line was the first house
whether Indian or not ?
A. Well, the first house was here, the store Mrs.
Dickinson had.
Q. How far to the north of Mrs. Dickinson of that
house you just now mentioned was the next house?
A. The next house was approximately about
there.
118 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. On tlie Ripinsky Homestead?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, how far from that to the north was the
first native house ?
A. I don't know. We knew these houses were
there because Billy Dickinson pointed them out to us
and we weren't interested in anything beyond that.
Q. Then you couldn't give us any idea as to where
the native village began ? A. No, sir.
Q. Can you give us any idea where it begins now %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, put it down there.
A. Well, it began right about here — shall I mark
it?
Q. Yes, mark it "N." (Witness marks.) Now,
that's where the first native house is now. That's
what's called Blind Isaac's, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for all you know that house was there in
1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fact of the matter is you haven't seen
any new native houses going up there, have you ?
A. Between that and Eipinsky's Homestead; no,
sir.
Q. I congratulate you, Mr. Fay; I think you've
got it just right; you needn't put this in the record,
Mr. Gillette, but for once I think Mr. Fay is right.
By Mr. LYONS.— I insist that the statement of
counsel go in the record.
A. We refer to all of these houses as on the Rip-
insky Homestead ; that's the way it is marked.
G. W. Hinchman et ah 119
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
By Mr. JENNINGS.— And that place marked
"N" is understood as Blind Isaac's house, isn't it?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. And has been known as Blind Isaac's house,
ever since you've been there, hasn't it?
A. Yes, sir, I think it has.
Q. Now, you say, Mr. Fa}^ when you came over
there on December 14th, 1897, you found a brush
fence along the track marked "Mission."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how far out was that? How long was
it, how far back from the beach did it extend?
A. Well, we didn't go any further than that.
Q. Than what is marked 3d Street there?
A. We didn't go further than block No. 2.
Q. But the fence still existed going on further
out?
A. I don't remember how far the fence — in fact,
didn't take any particular notice but I didn't notice
it along there.
Q. You know you went further than that, but
how far you don't know — is that what I understand?
A. I don't know; no, sir.
Q. But you know it went further?
A. I don't know that it went any further than
here?
Q. You say than here; what do you mean by
that? Describe it so the Referee can get it in the
record.
A. The brush fence, I don't know that it sent
any further than the west end of block No. 1; I took
120 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
particular pains to notice tliat far because most of
our work was around here.
Q. But you wouldn't swear one way or the other
as to how far the fence extended?
A. The brush fence; no, sir.
Q. Well, now, you came over there on Decem-
ber 14th, 1897, and located a lot marked^ with your
name on there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And located it by clearing a little patch and
putting your tent on it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you clear that lot? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you clear the whole lot ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are sure of that are you, Mr. Fay?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you grub it, clear off the ground?
A. We chopped down all the trees — that is, I
had it done; I didn't do it myself.
Q. On that day, December 14th, 1897?
A. Not just that day; no, sir.
Q. Well, how long after?
A. I started in and had it cleared just shortly
after, the next day; and from that time on, of course,
it took time to do this work; you can't clear that
kind of ground in a day by a long ways,
Q. Now, you say you located this lot; what do
j^ou mean by locating?
A. I went on there and put up a tent, and put
our stakes in and the surveyor this man Spooner
was with us when we located and showed us where
G. W. Hinchman et al. 121
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
each of our locations would be by his stakes; he was
one of our party.
Q. What did Spooner locate there?
A. He didn't locate anything.
Q. Now, that was December 14th, 1897; then
what did you do ?
A. When we got through, why we went to our
respective homes after making the location.
Q. Went back to Chilkat, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't undertake to live on that lot, did
you? A. Not just at that time.
Q. Did you leave anyone there in the tent to live
on it?
A. Just a few days afterwards I did, not the 14th
day of December, I didn't.
Q. You went back to Chilkat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you leave the tent there on the lot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you go back to Chilkat for?
A. I was employed over there in Kohler &
James' store.
Q. Now, you did all that, Mr. Fay, on the
strength of a railroad which you thought was com-
ing in there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you went over there and located a lot
and then went back to Chilkat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you never moved over there at all, did
you, until after the Porcupine excitement began?
A. I didn't move over but I had a party in my
122 Solomon Uipinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
tent that came up from Juneau; he stopped there
some time and he had a lot there.
Q. Who was that party?
A. His name was Tom Babbett.
Q. Where is he now? A. I don't know.
Q. When did you last hear from him?
A. I haven't heard from him since he left; he
was manager for Dewey, I believe; he was a sur-
veyor.
Q. When did he leave?
A. I can't recall; he came there shortly after we
located, and he was with Bishoprick who was up
here in Skagway.
Q. Never mind Bishoprick; I know him pretty
well — too well, I guess.
A. They came here together.
Q. And that railroad boom all died out, it was
a fake, wasn't it?
Objected to as irrelevant and not proper cross-
examination.
A. I don't know.
Q. I am talking of the railroad scheme of the
Perry-Humbert Expedition; that all died out and
went to pot, and everything went to ruin — isn't that
the fact?
A. Well, there was other parties that were talk-
ing railroad at the time.
Q. Well, there was nothing particularly to in-
duce you to pay any attention to Haines? That's
what I mean.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 123
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. There was railroad talk as there is now, and
we were all anticipating a railroad in there.
Q. Well, there was nothing in the immediate fu-
ture, was there, that would lead you to the supposi-
tion that Haines might be a good town?
A. As I say, other parties was talking railroad.
Q. Well, who else?
A. Bratnober was over there, and there was some
talk that he was going to build a railroad.
Q. Well, now, you went back to Chilkat; how
long did you stay at Chilkat?
A. I stayed there over night and came back to
Haines the next day.
Q. Well, what did you do between the time you
went over there on the 14th day of December, 1897,
and the fall of 1898 when the Porcupine excitement
broke out — where did you live ?
A. At Chilkat.
Q. You were still in business at Chilkat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone occupy your lot at Haines dur-
ing all that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. Tom Babbett.
Q. Who else lived there?
A. M. W. Lane lived there at Haines during all
that time; he was mail-carrier from Chilkat to
Haines during the time that —
Q, Well, who else lived there ?
A. Spooner lived there.
Q. This man, Spooner, that came over with you
from Chilkat when you located your lots ?
124 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes; lie didn't come from Cliilkat; he was at
Haines.
Q. Who else lived there 1 A. Tim Creedon.
Q. Where is he now ?
A. He will be here Monday.
Q. Who else? A. Tim Vogel.
Q. Did Tim Vogel live there from December 14th,
1897, up until after the Porcupine excitement?
A. Well, Mr. Jennings, you asked me some time
ago if I understood you right, if my place there had
been occupied after December 14th, 1897, and up to
the Porcupine excitement; now you are asking who
else lived there ?
Q. Yes, sir; that's just it, Mr. Fay.
A. Well, these other parties lived from that time,
December 14th, 1897, up to the Porcupine excitement.
Q. Now, you have mentioned three people. Do
you want to be understood as swearing that Tim
Vogel was at Haines before the Porcupine excite-
ment broke out? A. No, sir, I don't.
Q. Do you want to be understood as swearing that
Tim Creedon was there and lived at Haines before
the Porcupine excitement broke out ?
A. He told me so.
Q. T don't care what he told you; do you know?
Did you ever see his house there at the time ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you mean to be understood as swearing on
your oath, sir, that this man Spooner had a house
there before the Porcupine excitement broke out?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 125
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, I believe Spooner's house was there be-
fore the Porcupine excitement broke out.
Q. You mean the house that Spooner built on the
land he acquired from Mrs. Jack Dalton, don't you —
part of that one acre she owned, that's where he
lived?
A. Well, there was a conflict in regard to the
property —
Q. And Spooner gave in and bought from Mrs.
Dalton, didn't he?
A. He bought from the original locator, and the
conflict came on later between Spooner and Mrs. Dal-
ton.
Q. And he settled with Mrs. Dalton?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, At that time — up to the time of the Porcupine
excitement, it was well understood among yourself
and associates that Mrs. Dalton claimed one acre that
she bought from Mrs. Dickinson, was it not?
A. No, sir.
Q. From the time you went there up to the Por-
cupine excitement ?
A. No, sir; she claimed a half acre.
Q. You're sure of that now?
A. That's the way I understood it— let's see; no,
I guess it was an acre of ground she claimed; yes,
that's right.
Q. Do you mean to swear, Mr. Fay, that your man
Babbett lived on this lot of yours from December
14th, 1897, up to the time of the excitement, and you
lived at Chilkat ? A. No, sir.
126 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. How long did this man Babbett live on this
lot, this No. 4 Parcel No. 4 in Block 1, after the 14th
day of December, 1897 ?
A. Babbett came there a very few days after I
located that, and he wanted to come over and —
Q. I don't care for that ; you understand my ques-
tion, sir ? How long did this man Babbett live in this
tent you say you erected on Parcel No. 4 in Block 1 ?
A. I can't recall, it was quite a long time he lived
there and bached and made it his home.
Q. Did he live there three months ?
A. I don't know.
Q. Two months? A. I don't remember.
Q. One month? A. I don't know.
Q. Two weeks ?
A. I doi;'t just know the time — that's quite a
while ago.
Q. Well, he was your agent and tenant, you ought
to know how long he was there.
A. He was no agent of mine.
Q. And you don't know how long he stayed there
at all ? A. I do not.
Q. You never paid much attention to your lot it
seems to me, Mr. Pay ?
A. I can't recall just the length of time he stayed ;
it was some little time, and he left some of his things
with me when he left.
Q. What did he do with the tent?
A. My tent?
Q. Yes ? A. It was there when he left.
Q. What did he do with it when he left ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 127
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Nothing.
Q. Didn 't he retnni it to you ?
A. It was there. In the meantime I kept im-
proving this, this lot of mine, having it cleared up;
there was a whole lot of timber on it and it took quite
a long time to do the clearing, especially when the
timber and growth is heavy.
Q. That hasn't anything to do with the tent, has
it? A. I didn't do anything Avith the tent.
Q. Did anyone live in if?
A. At different times, yes.
Q. You just left the tent standing on your lot
then ? A. Yes, sir. '
Q. And you went to Cliilkat and lived there.
Now, you returned there in the fall of 1898 when the
Porcupine excitement came on?
A. Oh, I would have business at Haines all the
time; we received our freight at Haines at different
times and some at Chilkat ; so I had occasion to come
to Haines very often in the interest of the parties I
was working for. We received a good deal of our
freight at Haines, and so I would have business at
Haines practically every day — every time a boat
would come in.
Q. But when did you move over to Haines to live ?
You didn't move there until the Porcupine excite-
ment in the fall of 1898, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. And at that time a great many people came to
Haines and located and settled there, didn't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Two or three hundred of them?
128 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, there was quite a lot of them ; they were
a moving population; kept coming and going, and
didn't stop at Haines.
Q. They simply overran this tract of land, and
settled wherever they wanted to, didn't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And paid no attention whatever to Sol. Rip-
inski ?
A. There was nobody that knew anything about
land that Sol. Ripinski claimed only where he kept a
store there, — after this excitement started up.
Q. You say you didn't — you didn't know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know nobody else knew ?
A. Of course nobody — I mean myself — may be
better for me to speak for myself.
:Q. Now, this independent lot you're talking about
that Sol. Ripinski bought from Barnett and Barnett
bought from a man by the name of Bigelow — was
that the long, tall fellow they called "Long Shorty"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He 's in the penitentiary now ?
A. I heard so ; yes.
Q. You sold to Long Shorty? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is one of the original men that overran this
whole tract here, isn't he? A. No, sir.
Q. He took up a lot himself, didn't he?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Do you mean to tell me, sir, that Long Shorty
wasn't one of the original jumpers of this tract of
land?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 129
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and not
proper cross-examination; and there is no evidence
that there was any "jumping" or "overrunning" of
this property.
A. Long Shorty was living with a native woman
down on the beach in Indian town.
Q. Well, Long Shorty sold to Barnett, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You sold to Long Shorty and he sold to Bar-
nett? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see the deed from Barnett to Sol.
Ripinsky? A. No, sir.
Q. You don 't know how Sol. Eipinsky came to buy
that lot, do you ? A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know whether Long Shorty and Ben
Barnett even recognized that this lot was on Sol.
Ripinski's land, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you say you had "frequent" conversa-
tions with Sol Ripinski about renting a house down
there for dances; can't you fix the date when you had
the first conversation with him about that ?
A. Oh, no; I can't do that. There is a Peniel
Mission in the building now, and I guess they have
been there about three years; and we have an A. B.
Hall there now where dances and little festivities are
pulled off, and consequently w^e have no necessity for
the Sol. Ripinski building any more.
Q. I am asking you, sir, if you can fix the date
when you had the first conversation with Sol Ripinski
about renting that building for any social purpose ?
A. No, sir.
130 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Was it before or after jou sold to Barnett ?
A. It was after I sold to Bigelow.
Q. Was it before or after Bigelow sold to Bar-
nett?
A. It was after Bigelow sold to Barnett.
Q. Was it before or after Barnett sold to Rip-
inski ?
A. As to tliat, I don't know when Barnett sold to
Ripinski.
Q. You don't know a thing about that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Fay, when you first went over there on
December 14th, 1897, to locate a lot, you didn't locate
this Lot No. 4 in Block No. 1 at that particular time,
did you ?
A. Part of it; not all of this over here. There
was a little conflict in regard to that, that is, I located
it over this way a little.
Q. Which way?
A. A little east of the present boundary lines of
Lot No. 4 in Block No. 1.
Q. That is to say, it came over on to what is called
the Dalton acre, didn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Jack Dalton protested to 3^ou, and made
his protest so strong, that you moved over on to Sol.
Ripinski 's land? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't have any trouble with Jack Dalton
then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He protested, and you got off?
A. Well, we had a meeting —
Q. Never mind ; I don't care about any meeting —
G. W. Hinchman et al. 131
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
By Mr. LYONS. — I protest against counsel inter-
fering with the witness while he is giving his answers.
Q. I don't care about any meeting — you got off
that acre, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir; Mrs. Dalton claimed it — Jack didn't.
Q. Well, she is the wife of Jack Dalton ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you paid attention to her protest, and got
off? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn't you tell her that she and Mrs.
Dickinson never owned the land — ^that Mrs. Dickin-
son never owned the land, and therefore she had no
right to it?
Objected to as not proper cross-examination, in-
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. You say that was all virgin wilderness there;
why didn't you tell Mrs. Dalton when she protested
about you being on her land that she bought from
Mrs. Dickinson — why didn't you tell her that Mrs.
Dickinson never owned the land and therefore she
didn't own it — why didn't you tell her that?
A. I don't know.
Q. When did you learn you were on the acre
claimed by Mrs. Jack Dalton?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Well, was it before or after the Porcupine ex-
citement? A. I can't recall as to that.
Q. Well, was it before or after your man Babbett
had left there?
A. It was after Babbett left there, I think— I'm
not certain as to that.
132 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. I think that's all, Mr. Fay.
By Mr. LYONS. — I suppose it may be "understood
at this time that each party to the suit pa,ys for his
own examination of the witnesses ; that is, we pay for
our own direct examination of our own witnesses and
our cross-examination of your witnesses, and that
you do the same? We ought to have some under-
standing about how the Referee is to be paid.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Yes, that is satisfactory to
us ; when the record is made up, the Referee can just
estimate from the record and charge the parties ac-
cordingly.
Redirect Examination (Witness H. FAY).
By Mr. LYONS.— I believe you testified that the
improvements which 3^ou made on the lot that you
claim in Haines are worth substantially five thousand
dollars? A. Yes, sir, approximately.
Q. I now call 3^our attention to a Record styled
''Town Lots" or named "Town Lots, Transcribed
from original Juneau Record, Misc. May, 1898, to
June, 1896," and called — which records are taken
from the Skagway recording office, and I call your
attention to page 242 and ask you if you are familiar
with the location notice or what is marked a location
notice close to the bottom of that page ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make out that location notice, or the
location notice of which that is a copy?
A. Did I make it out, do you mean ?
Q. Yes, sir ; draft it ? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 133
(Testiiiiony of H. Fay.)
Q. What property is referred to in that location
notice %
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not the best evidence.
A. Parcel No. 4 in Block 1, Haines.
Q. This location notice is dated December 14th,
1897; was it drawn on that date — ^made out on that
date? A. No, sir.
Q. When was it made ?
A. It was made out a few days after that ; we went
around and staked the lots and put our notices on the
stakes — the survey stakes that were made by the sur-
veyor.
Q. Well, you see it is dated December 14th, 1897 ;
what does that indicate ?
A. That indicates that the lots were located on
that day, December 14th, 1897, and so it was stated on
the location notice.
Q. All right, Mr. Fay. Now, counsel for the
plaintiffs desires to read this record into evidence,
styled "Town Lots Transcribed from the original
Juneau Eecord, Miscellaneous, May, 1898, to June,
1898," which book is now one of the records of the
Skagway recording office, Skagway, Alaska.
Counsel for the defendant objects to the reading of
the notice into the record on the ground that it is
immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent, and because
there is no authority shown for the subdivision of the
land there at Haines into lots and blocks ; and there
is no authorized plat and no plat at all in evidence by
134 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
which the words "Lots 3, 2 and 4 Block 1" can bq
identified.
By Mr. LYONS.— We will offer the plat in evi-
dence later.
"NOTICE OF LOCATION— TOWN LOT.
Lot 3, 2 and 4, Block 1, Haines.
Notice is hereby given that I, the undersigned, a
citizen of the United States over the age of twenty-
one years, have located and do hereby locate and
claim for residence or business purposes that certain
lot or xDarcel of ground situate in the town of Haines
in the District of Alaska, known and designated as
Lots 3 and 4 in Block 1 as shown in the survey and
plat of said to^^ai made by Walter Fogelstrom, Civil
Engineer,
Dated December 14th, 1897.
HARRY FAY,
Locator."
A. I would like to state that when I say this is
indicated by Lot 4 in Block 1, it is indicated there as
number three and four because I did move from a
part of Lot 3 up a ways, you see, so the original lo-
cation takes or did take in part of 3 and 4 ; but when
Mrs. Dalton claimed we was on her ground we had
this meeting among ourselves and we finally agreed
to move up so it wouldn't conflict; so it takes in prac-
tically 3 and 4 of the original location in Block 1.
Q. You procured a record of that location notice
to be made, did 3^ou ? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 135
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Fay, this notice Mr.
Lj^ons just read reads as follows: "Notice of Loca-
tion of Town Lots 3, 2 and 4, Block 2, Town of
Haines ' ' ?
By Mr. LYONS. — Just read that notice further
down, Mr. Jennings; you will find that Lot 2 isn't
included.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I see ; that location notice
said lots 3, 2 and 4 Block 1, Haines, and further down
in the location notice itself lot No. 2 is left out. Now
many lots did you locate there ? A. One.
Q. Why do you call it 3, 2 and 4 then %
A. I located, as I said before, one hundred feet
square, we original locators ; and w^hen the surveyors
come around they took and said that lots thereafter
would be fifty feet front, and while I located one lot,
I was marked as two lots ; and then thereafter, any
lots located were fifty feet front and 140 feet in depth,
while my original location was one lot 100x100.
Q. You say when "we" had a meeting and de-
cided; you mean you and Spooner and McLoughlin
and you original men that went over there and lo-
cated'? A. Original locators; yes, sir.
Q. How^ many of you were there %
A. About six of us.
Q. You were the only ones, about six of you, who
affected to locate lots, and lay out that town by lots
and blocks and to lay out the streets, weren't you,
and got a man by the name of Fogelstrom to make a
survey? A. We were part of them ; yes, sir.
136 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. And when Jack Dalton protested that you
were on his wife's ground, it was very easy for you to
set the stakes up towards the Mission line, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you did that in total disregard of the
rights of anyone except Jack Dalton %
A. Not up to the Mission line, but in a westerly
direction from my east line.
Q. Isn't that the Mission line?
A. I wouldn't call it to the Mission line ; no.
Q. You wouldn't call it up to the Mission line?
A. Let's see; yes, I guess it would be; yes, sir.
That's all.
[Testimony of G. W. Hinchman, for the Plaintiffs.]
G. W. HINCHMAN, being first duly sworn on
behalf of the plaintiffs, then testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Please state your name.
A. G. W. Hinchman.
Q. Your residence and occupation.
A. Residence, Haines, Alaska; I'm a miner by
occupation.
Q. You're one of the plaintiffs in this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines, Alaska ?
A. I would like to ask in the first place, do you
mean since I actually began residing there perma-
nently, or —
Q. Yes?
A. Let's see; well, I have made Haines my home
since 1899.
G. W. Hinchman ef al. 137
.(Testimony of Gr. W. Hinchman.)
Q. When did you first go to Haines ■?
A. February 13th or 14th, I'm not sure the day;
in the spring of 1899.
Q. Are you familiar with the whole town or vil-
lage of Haines % A. I am.
Q. Are you familiar with all of the tract of land
in controversy in this action. A. I am.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1, and ask you if you are familiar with all of the
tract included within the lines on that plat shaded
yellow? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say you first saw that tract on or in
February of the year 1899? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, describe that tract of land as you first
saw it.
A. Well, of course, there was part of that tract
I didn't pay much attention to; the ground was cov-
ered with snow at the time, and around down here I
didn 't notice —
Q. Now, whenever you say '* around down here,"
indicate the part of the map so the Referee can get it.
A. Well, the part that says Ripinski Homestead ;
I won't say positively but I didn't notice any large
timber on that part. And the place here known as
Lot 1 in Block No. 1 there was a hotel there at that
time, and there w^as houses — there was a house on
Lot No. 1 in Block No. 2, but I wouldn't say whether
there was any more real houses there or not; but
there was tents and frames in different places all over
the strip as far as I could see; of course I wasn't on
the strip excepting as I stopped in the hotel going up.
138 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
X Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
The main part of tliat strip was covered with heavy
timber, and in many places they were just cutting
the timber and putting up tents and foundations.
Q. What kind of timber was. the tract covered
with? A. Hemlock and spruce, mainly.
Q. Have you had any experience in clearing land,
Mr. Hinchman? A. Yes, sir, I have had some.
Q. How extensive has that experience been ?
A. Well, mainly in clearing where I resided in
Haines, Lots No. 11 and 12 in Block No. 3 there.
Q. Where you reside ?
A. It is marked Lot No. 8 there, but according to
the old plat it was lots 11 and 12, and where it is
marked 7 there, it was 12.
Q. In Block No. 3? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you now reside there ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The two lots that are marked numbers seven
and eight in Block No. 3 are your lots, are they ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any building on Lot No. 7?
A. There is. There wasn't when this map was
made ; but there was at one time, I have seen a house
on there in the fall of 1899 and at other times, but it
was burned down in the fire that burnt over a part
of Haines — I forgot what .year that was, but I think
in 1903.
Q. How long have you occupied those two lots ?
A. Since the fall of 1903.
Q. How did you acquire possession of them?
A. I bought them ; bought the one that shows the
house on there I think it was from M. W. Lane — I
wouldn't be positive as to his initials.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 139
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliman.)
Q. Which lot is that?
A. It is known on here as Lot No. 8.
Q. In Block No. 3 on this Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
11
A. Yes, sir, in Block 3, and I got the other one
from Bjornstad, who bought from M. W. Lane.
Q. When did you purchase these lots from Lane
and Bjornstad?
A. As to the exact date — from Lane I purchased
in the fall, but whether it was in October or Novem-
ber— I think it was in October, but I wouldn't be posi-
tive, of 1903.
Q. When did you buy from the other man?
A. Well, it was a year later — Bjornstad — I think
it was the year following, but I wouldn't be positive
as to that.
Q. What improvements were on the lots when you
purchased them from Lane and the other man %
A. Well, the one I purchased from Lane there
was a house on it, about one-third of the house you
see marked there — this part, the small part of the
house shown on lot No. 8 according to this survey.
Q. What improvements, if any, were on the other
lot. No. 7?
A. There was a pile of logs on there that Bjorn-
stad hauled to build a house to replace the one that
was burnt down.
Q. Have you made any further improvements on
these lots since you purchased them?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
140 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Gr. W. Hinchinan.)
A. I cleared lot No. 8 of most all the stmups and
other debris, it was first all brush and trees on it, and
stmnps ; and I cleared most all of that and got a por-
tion of Lot No. 7 cleared.
A. Yes, sir, I built an addition to the house — well,
I began right awa}^ after I bought it in May, and in
about six months or a year I built an addition to it,
and then I put up those logs into a house this spring.
Q. What logs?
A. Those logs that Bjornstad had on there, and
used that for a woodshed, on Lot No. 7.
Q. Can 5^ou state approximately what the im-
provements you have placed upon those lots have
cost you ?
A. As near as I can remember, the amount they
cost me in labor and improvements, would be between
twelve and fifteen hundred dollars.
Q. And that includes —
A. Yes, the labor and money — total expense.
Q. That includes your own labor ?
A. Yes, sir, includes my own labor I have put on
the lots.
Q. And what did you pay for the lots originally ?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. I paid sixty dollars for one, and did some
work for the other one — don't know as I can't state
the exact sum, because there was no sum stated —
probably twenty-five dollars.
Q. For whom was the work done ?
A. For Bjornstad. I couldn't say as to the
amount because there was no exact amount named.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 141
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski or anyone in Ms behalf ever
protest against your occupying or improving those
lots % A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Eipinski or anyone in his behalf ever
tell you he claimed those lots or any portion of them ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Eipinski or anyone in his behalf ever
claim to you that he owned a tract of land which in-
cluded those two lots ? A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Eipinski has lived in Haines during nearly
all the time since you have been there, hasn't he?
, A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he could have seen you erecting those
structures %
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, and call-
ing for a conclusion of the witness.
Q. Well, he never protested against you erecting
those buildings, you say? A. No, sir.
Q. And never asserted any claim or title to the
land? A. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
Q. He never made that claim to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nor to anyone else to your knowledge ?
A. No, sir.
Q. And no one in his behalf ever laid any claim
to that land ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he ever post any notice indicating his
claim, to that land — those lots?
A. Not that I ever seen or heard of — nor that any-
one else seen that I know of.
142 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
Q. Now, you say you are familiar with the tract
of land in controversy in this action. Are you fa-
miliar with all of the improvements that have been
made on that tract ?
A. Well, fairly well — fairly well, yes, sir.
Q. Are you sufficiently familiar to make an ap-
proximate estimate of the cost of clearing the land
as it has been cleared, and erecting the buildings and
improvements that are now constructed thereon?
Objected to —
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Well— can you form an
estimate, that is all right —
A. Yes, I would say from —
Q. Well, he didn't ask you what the estimate was.
By Mr. LYONS. — What would you state, approxi-
mately, have the clearing and the building of the
structures now on that tract cost?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I would say from fifty to seventy-five thousand
dollars.
Q. How long have you been acquainted with the
defendant ?
A. Well, I have known Mr. Ripinski ever since
about the fall of 1899 ; I was in his store in the spring
of '99 but he wasn't there, I don't think.
Q. You know where he lives in Haines ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. He lives in — you want me to designate the
place ?
Q. Yes, sir ; on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 143
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
A. In the place near the corner of this exhibit
marked Corner No. 1, he has a store there.
Q. Is it right at Corner No. 1 ?
A. No, it is back a little ways from the beach.
Q. On the parcel marked ''Ripinski Homestead"
on this map ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On that parcel, represented there. Now, did
you ever see Mr. Ripinski, since you have been
there, improving any land included in this disputed
tract west of the parcel that is marked "Ripinski
Homestead'"?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — Mr. Hinchman, you say you
first came to Haines in the fall of 1899^
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you first come to Haines?
A. In the spring of 1899.
Q. Who was there then?
A. There was several people there then; who, I
don't remember,
Q. Was Sol. Ripinski there then?
A. He had a store there — at least I heard it was
Ripinski's store, but as to knowing the fact at that
time, I didn't.
Q. And who else was there?
A. A man by the name of Spooner — had a hotel
there.
Q. Who else?
144 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliman.)
A. Tim Vogel had a kind of a hotel and saloon
there too.
Q. Who else?
A. There were others — I didn't stay in the place
but three days at that time.
Q. All you remember, though, is Sol. Ripinski
and Tim Vogel?
A. Yes, there was another man b}^ the name of
De Haven — he wasn't doing anything there then
that I know of, and another man I met by the name
of 0 'Connor.
Q. He isn't a party to this suit, is he?
A. No, sir.
Q. And how long did you stay there at that time?
A. It was three or four days — I wouldn't be posi-
tive.
Q. Did you take up any lot at that time?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you knew at that time that Sol. Ripin-
ski was claiming that land didn't you?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. You didn't know there was a controversy
right then between Ripinski and these men he calls
jumpers? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Who did you meet there at the time, did you
meet Sol. Ripinski on that trip ?
A. No, I don't think I did.
Q. Did you meet Tim Vogel?
A. Yes, I just saw him is all.
Q. Didn't meet him to talk to him?
A. No, sir.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 145
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
Q. Did you meet Mr. De Haven to talk to him*?
A. No, sir, not on an}^ special subject; just about
the Creek, I was going up to Porcupine.
Q. Did you meet Spooner? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't talk to any one at that time
about who owned or claimed that land?
A. No, sir.
Q. In fact you didn't care — you were on your
way to the strike on the Porcuj^ine ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The matter as to who owned that land wasn't
discussed by any one in your presence at the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you went on into the Porcupine?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. Not any time at all — I went on over to Nugget
Creek and stayed there that summer.
Q. Then you never came back until the fall of
1903?
A. Yes, sir, I came back in the fall of 1899.
Q. And who was there at Haines then?
A. There was a good many people there then.
Q. Who?
A. Well, there was Mr. Vogel, Mr. Spooner — no,
Spooner wasn't there then; and Kernan, Warner —
Q. You don't mean the Missionary?
A. No, it was a man that bought from Spooner —
Q. Never mind who bought ; I didn't ask you that
— now, that's all you remember?
A. No, sir, there were several others.
146 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliman.)
Q. Who else?
A. Well, Joe Chisel, Mr. Weitzmann —
Q. Now, you're sure of that, are you?
A. I'm sure of that, sir.
Q. You're sure Mr. Weitzmann was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the fall of 1899? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, all right — go ahead now — wait a
minute; did you see Mr. Weitzmann there at the
time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you talk to him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You mean R. L. Weitzmann, one of the plain-
tiffs in this case, do you?
A. I guess so; that's the gentleman over there.
Q. One of the plaintiffs in this case, who runs a
store down there at Haines?
A. Yes, sir, he was running it there then, too,
Q. Now, who else?
A. M. W. Lane — I think that's his initials; and
Ed Adams, C. G. De Haven, Tim Creedon, and
Campbell — I don't remember what his initials are
now —
Q. And that was in the fall of 1899?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Yes, sir.
Did you take up a lot there then?
No, sir.
Did you talk to anybody about it?
No, sir.
Had these men you just mentioned taken up
lots there?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 147
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
A. I think so; they were living in houses around
there.
Q. Did you discuss the question as to who that
land belonged to around there?
A. Not that I remember of.
Q. Did you hear anybody discuss it?
A. I may have, and I may not; along about that
time there had been a suit —
Q. Between Ripinski and —
A. Ripinski and those parties, I believe.
Q. And you heard them say they had won the
suit and he had no more title to it, or no title to it —
that is, his claim if he ever had one was forever set-
tled? A. I know he had a suit; yes.
Q. And you knew what land it was there he was
claiming?
A. No, only a part of it — that is, I knew he
claimed part of the land around there but just what
part of it I didn't know — they had a suit as to the
boundaries as I understood it, and I heard it dis-
cussed somewhat at the time.
Q. All riffht— that was in the fall of 1899?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
"^to^
Yes, sir.
And how long did you stay there then?
All that winter.
Where did you live?
I lived in a house in Lot 6 in Block 4.
Who owned that lot at the time — who pre-
tended to own it?
A. Harry Fay, we rented it from him.
1-18 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliinan.)
Q. One of the plaintiffs in this case, the gentle-
man on the stand just before you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he claim to own it at that time ?
A. He either claimed to own or act as agent for
someone else.
Q. You rented it from him*?
A. Yes, sir, we did; I say we — I and two other
fellows.
Q. That was in the fall of 1899 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Where did you stay that winter?
A. At Haines.
Q. How did you make a living that winter?
A. We had that when we came there.
Q. Oh, you had a stake when you got back there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you then stayed there the winter of 1899 ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you mean to sa}^, sir, that during all of
that time you never heard of Sol. Ripinski claiming
to own that land?
A. All I heard was what I told you; that there
had been a suit along that fall or summer, or there
had been a suit and they had beaten him in the suit.
A. In 1899?
Q. In 1899?
A. I think it was the summer of 1899 ; any wa}^, it
had been before that and I heard the talk of the suit,
but the exact time of the suit of course I don't know
because I wasn't in town at the time.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 149
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
Q. Now, the winter of 1899 you stayed there;
what did you do when the spring of 1900 came?
A. Went back up the creek.
Q. The Porcupine?
A. Xo, sir; Nugget Creek.
Q. And how long did you staj^ there then?
A. Until the fall of 1900.
Q. What did you do then?
A. Came iDack to Haines.
Q. Where did you live when you came back to
Haines ? A. The same house as the other time.
Q. Do you mean to say that you didn't know
then that Sol. Ripinski was still claiming title to that
land? A. No, sir.
Q. Don't you know, sir, that he filed Soldiers'
Additional Homestead Scrip on the land about that
time? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you, notwithstanding the issue of that
suit, know that he was still claiming that land?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you never heard, after Sol. Ripinski lost
that suit that he was still claiming that land?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never did? A. No, sir.
Q. Then, why didn't you take up a lot yourself?
A. Most everybody claimed the whole country
there ; there was houses and foundations on every lot
that looked to be worth anything and they asked
pretty good prices for them by the lot and I didn't
want to lay out any money on a place that didn't look
good to me.
150 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
Q. In 1900 the place was all claimed by some-
body, was \i%
A. Yes, sir, as far as I know; I didn't ask no
great amount of questions; only asked about a few
places around, and somebody seemed to claim most
everytbing.
Q. There seemed to be a claimant for about every
piece of property there, didn't there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did 3^ou go then, 1900?
A. Back up on the creek again.
Q. Nugget Creek? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you stay there that trip?
A. All summer.
Q. That would bring you to the summer of 1901?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, what did you do?
A. I came back and stayed in Skagway most of
that winter.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Went back to the creek again.
Q. Nugget Creek— in the fall of 1901?
A. No, the spring of 1901.
Q. And how long did you stay there then?
A. Until fall.
Q. In the fall of 1901, then what did you do ?
A. I came back to Haines.
Q. Where did you live in Haines at that time?
A. I lived with C. G. De Haven.
Q. Point out the place on this map where you
lived?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 151
(Testimony of G, W. Hincliman.)
A. Well, it was on Lot 7 in Block No. 1 it is
called on this map, De Haven and Creedon; I stayed
there that winter.
Q. Did you hear anything about Sol. Ripinski
claiming that land then?
A. No, sir. Oh, of course I heard a few claim
that he was beat on his suit, but I hadn't heard he
was claiming it since the suit.
Q. You never heard at that time that he still
claimed it, and had filed Soldiers' Additional Scrip
on it? A. No, sir.
Q. Did any one ever tell you w^hat kind of a suit
that w^as? A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know^, then, it was a suit for all
this land?
A. No, only as I heard conversations about it,
that it was a suit for some part of the land there
that covered a part of the towmsite, I never knew
how much.
Q. You never came back to Haines to live per-
manently then, until 1903?
A. Not permanently.
Q. The spring of 1903, was it?
A. Well, the w^inter of 1902 I built a house there.
Q. Didn't you know, sir, that Sol. Ripinski
claimed that land at that time?
A. No, sir, and he don't even claim I did to-day.
Q. Now% where did you build?
A. Off of where the claims his homestead was.
Q. Off of that, w^as it?
A. Yes, sir, a block away from it.
152 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclunan.)
Q. All right. Now, when did you build the
houses on the lots you are claiming here, lots 7 and
8 in Block No. 3?
A. I built there in the fall of 1903.
Q. You bought that property, you say, from M.
W. Lane and Carl Bjornstad? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you j)nt in hard cash for that property
too, didn't you^ A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't it ever occui' to you as a wise man to
find out who owned the property before you bought
it?
A. I don't think, when a man holds a deed to a
piece of land and nobody lays any claim to it, but
what it ought to be considered a good title.
Q. But you never took any pains to find out
whether Sol. Ripinski claimed the land?
A. I don't see that I had to hunt the country over
to see if I couldn't find somebody to claim it.
Q. You didn't know w^hether Mr. Lane knew that
Sol. Ripinski claimed that land, did you, — the man
3"0U bought from?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not proper cross-examination.
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Bjornstad knew it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask any questions at all as to who
owned that land? A. No, sir, because they —
Q. You knew at that time there had been a suit
between Sol. Ripinski and Lane and these men that
Sol. claims jumped his property, didn't you?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 153
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
A. I knew there had been, but I didn't know
whether it was about that or not.
Q. And you didn't know whether or not that
suit had been appealed either, did you?
A. Yes, sir, I heard it had been appealed, and he
was beaten on the appeal also.
Q. Who told you that?
A. I heard it discussed generally, I couldn't say.
Q. Did you know whether or not that was so?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you take any pains to find out whether
it was so?
A. No; I only supposed that people talking about
it kneW' .
Q. You say you bought from Lane in 1903 and
from Bjornstad in 1904? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you mean to say that this dispute be-
tween Sol. Ripinski and these alleged jumpers was
't)n at the time? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't know anything about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. You swear to that do you? A. I do.
Q. Didn't you ever get a registered letter from
Sol. Ripinski w^arning you not to build on those lots?
A. I did not.
Q. You swear to that? A. I do.
Q. Didn't you ever get a registered letter from
me, signed by R. W. Jennings, telling you that Sol.
Ripinski claimed that land and for you not to build
on it? A. No, sir, I did not.
154 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
Q. Now, you sa}^ 3"our improvements tliere stand
you about $1,500?
A. Somewhere between twelve and fifteen hun-
dred dollars.
Q. Then if Sol. wins this suit, you will be out
about fifteen hundred dollars, won't you*?
Objected to as not proper cross-examination.
A. I don't know the exact amount — I would be
out considerable.
Q. Then you have that amount of interest in this
case?
A. Yes, I should think I had that much interest
in the case.
Q. Where do you live now?
A. I live in this same place, lots 11 and 12 in
Block No. 3 — or lots 7 and 8 according to this map.
Q. When did you first hear that Sol. Ripinski
claimed those lots, number 7 and 8?
A. I should judge it was about a year or a little
over ago, when he had some sort of a survey made
through there.
Q. And that's the first time that you ever heard
he claimed that land?
A. Yes, sir; that particular part of it; of course
I knew there was some claim he had on some land
there and he had a lawsuit over it and he had been
beaten in the suit — that was my understanding of it.
Q. Are you a married man? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you got a family living down there at
Haines? A. Just me and my wife is all.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 155
(Testimony of G. W. Hinchman.)
Q. Living at Haines. Now, do you remember —
did you ever liear any other of your coplaintiffs
talking about registered letters they got from Sol.
Ripinski warning them not to build on this tract and
saying that he claimed that land?
A. I never heard of any registered letters; I
heard some of them speak at one time about being
warned by him.
Q. And you say you never were warned?
A. No, sir.
Q. How far is lots 7 and 8 from the place where
Sol. Ripinski lived — how far is the property you
claim from the property where Sol. Ripinski lived,
his house?
A. About twelve hundred feet, I would think,
from the map.
Q. Can you see your house from the place where
Ripinski 's house is?
A. No, sir, I don't think so.
Q. You have to go up kind of a rise there, don't
you, to see Sol. Ripinski 's house?
A. On this road — this is a public road here, and
Sol. Ripinski and other people have to go along this
road here or along that street there right in front of
my house.
Q. I'm not asking you about that road; from
where Sol. Ripinski lives, from where his house is
on the beach, on the Ripinski homestead up to
Second Avenue is quite an abrupt rise, isn't it?
A. Well, there is considerable of a rise there.
Q. Yes, sir; a person to see you building here
15^ Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclmian.)
would have to go up Second Street there almost as
far as your house ?
A. Well, they would have to go up somewhere
along Main Street.
Q. Now, how long did it take you to build your
house?
A. The first part, I don't know the exact time,
probably took three or four weeks — in fact, I
couldn't state the exact time.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — When you purchased those two
lots, the men from whom you purchased them were
in actual possession of the lots, were theyf
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they executed deeds to you for those
lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What portion of the town of Haines is in-
cluded—
A. Well, excuse me; as to Bjornstad, I have no
deed on record from him, but I have a deed on rec-
ord for the other one.
Q. Did you procure a deed from Bjornstad?
A. No; he promised to furnish me one, but hasn't
given it.
Q. What portion of the town of Haines, that is,
the business and residential portion of the town of
Haines, is included in this tract in controversy?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I would judge there is from eighty-five to
ninety per cent of it.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 157
(Testimony of G. W. Hinclimaii.)
Q. With reference to the streets that are indi-
cated on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, is the street
marked "Main Street" an open thoroughfare?
A. It is.
Q. Used by the people of the town of Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Second Street an open street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Used by the people and the public as such?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Third Avenue?
Objected to for the same reason as last above
stated.
A. Well, it is plotted out as a street and is useJ
some, not very much; hasn't been worked enough to
be a good road.
Q. What about Fourth Avenue?
Objected to for the reason last above stated.
A. Well, there has been very little travel on it,
in fact you can't use it as a wagon road at the pres-
ent time, but there is a footpath through there.
Q. Is it platted as a street? A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and not
the best evidence.
Q. And it is respected as a street by adjoining lot
owners?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and indefin-
ite.
A. Yes, sir.
158 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliman.)
Q. How about Fifth Avenue; is that an open
thoroughfare? A. It is.
Objected to for the same reason as given as objec-
tion to the former questions about these streets.
Q. It is used b}" the public of Haines as a street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Sixth Avenue ?
Same objection as last above.
A. It is plotted but not used.
Defendant moves to strike the answer as not the
best evidence.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— When you say a street has
been plotted, what do you mean — have you seen those
streets platted ? Seen the plat? A. I have.
Q. Whereabouts?
A. Well, there was one, they got several made —
Q. Who got several made ?
A. The people of Haines.
Q. You say they have got several — you don't
know whether they are official plats, do you ?
A. I know who made one of them, there was one
made — Oh, to say swear to it, of course, I couldn't
swear, but there was one said to have been made by
Fogelstrom, the surveyor.
Q. You don 't know what authority he had to make
that plat ? A. No, sir.
Q. You don't undertake to swear that that is an
official plat of the townsite of Haines, do you?
A. No, I don't think it would be considered that.
G. W. HincJiman et al. ISi)
(Testimony of G. W. Hincliman.)
Q. Simply a drawing of what you people decided
should be streets and lots and blocks ?
A. Yes, sir; that's all we have got to go by at the
present time.
Q. You don't know by whose authority it was
made ?
A. By the authority of the people of Haines.
Q. How do you know?
A. Because I heard them say so.
Q. You didn't authorize Fogelstrom to make that
survey, did you ? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't authorize them to have your lots
surveyed? A. No, sir.
Q. Then, how did you know it was made by the
authority of the people of the town of Haines ?
A. I heard Fay and Lane and some others say so.
Q. Are they the people of the town of Haines?
A. Part of them, yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear any one beside Fay and Lane say
that?
A. Yes, I think Mr. Vogel said so too — I think he
did.
Q. Who else did you ever hear say so?
A. I couldn't say all I have heard say so — Carl
Bjornstad is another ; any way, I heard enough people
say so to convince me that it was made by their con-
sent.
Q. The consent of the people you have named?
A. By the people of the town of Haines.
Q. But you don 't consider them the people of the
town of Haines, do you, Mr, Hinclunan ?
160 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
[Testimony of Tim Vogei, for the Plaintiffs.]
TIM VOGEL, a witness called to testify on behalf
of th€ plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, on oath testi-
fied as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — State your name, residence, and
occupation.
A. Tim Vogel ; I am in the liquor business at the
present time.
Q. And you reside where "?
A. Haines, Alaska.
Q. How long have you resided in Haines?
A. Since the spring of 1898.
Q. When did you first go there, what date ?
A. I went there in February.
Q. Of the year 1898? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have resided' there continually ever
since ?
A. Well, I left there soon after I came there and
came back in April of the same yesiv — I w^as there at
the time they held the town meeting and organized
in Spooner's hotel.
Q. When was that? A. In February, 1898.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Then when did you build there, Mr. Vogel?
In April, 1898.
Where did you construct your building?
On Block No. 2, Lot 1.
As indicated on Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1?
Yes, sir.
What is the value of the improvements you
have placed on that lot?
G. W. Hinchmmi et al. 161
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. At that time ?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, — oil, about $3,000 worth of improve-
ments at that time.
Q. And how much improvements have you placed
on that lot during all the time you have lived there?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. About seven thousand dollars' worth.
Q. About seven thousand dollars'?
A. All of that, yes, sir.
Q. What lot do you now own in Haines?
A. A part of Lot No. 1 in Block 2, and forty-five
feet of Lot 2 in Block No. 2 — front end of the lots.
Q. That's the property you own in Haines at the
present time ; you located that lot yourself, did you ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who located it?
A. I bought it from a man by the name of E. L.
Wilson, a real estate dealer there — or rather C. J.
O 'Donnel bought it, a partner of mine.
Q. Do you know who did locate that lot in the
first place?
A. No, sir; Mr. E. L. Wilson had the lot at the
time ; I bought it from him and paid him sevent}^-five
dollars for it.
Q. When you bought the lot, were the boundaries
marked? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How?
A. Well, there were posts at the corners ; the sur-
veyor put me on the corner of Block 2 Lot 1.
162 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Yogel.)
Q. Did you mark the boundaries yourself, then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Set corner posts, did you?
A. The surveyor set the corner posts for me, and
the carpenters done the rest.
Q. He set the comers for you?
A. Yes, sir; so I could get the building square
with the street.
Q. And you began building shortly afterwards,
then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were one of the first residents of the town
of Haines, were you not?
A. Almost; one of the first, yes, sir.
Q. And you know the town pretty thoroughly.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What proportion of the town would you say is
included within this disputed tract, what portion
of the business and residential part of the town?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. Well, this tract is right on the main thorough-
fare.
Q. And it includes what percentage of the busi-
ness and residential part of the town of Haines ?
A. I should judge about sixty or seventy per cent
of it — right on the main thoroughfare.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Sol. Ripinski?
A. I do.
Q. When did you first see him?
A. The summer of 1898, at Chilkat.
Q. Did you ever see him at Haines at that time ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 163
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
A. Yes, I used to see him at Haines that summer,
too; he had a store at Haines, too, and his brother
was running it.
Q. Did you see Mr. Eipinsld in Haines before you
purchased your lot from Wilson? A. No, sir.
Q. He was living at Chilkat, at the time, was he %
A. I believe so; I didn't get acquainted with him
until about two months after, over there.
Q. Over where?
A. Over at Chilkat ; I drove a team over there and
got acquainted with him.
Q. Did Mr. Eipinski or anyone in his behalf ever
object to you improving this lot that you bought
there? A. Not at that time, no, sir.
Q. Did he knew you were improving it?
Objected to as leading.
A. I suppose so; I was there all that summer.
Q. He never made any protest against you build-
ing on that lot ? A. No, sir.
Objected to as leading.
Q. And never laid any claim to it?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. How much of the tract of ground in dispute
did Mr. Einpinski ever occupy at the town of
Haines ?
A. He occupied the part down on the beach and
has a garden running up about a hundred and fifty
feet, I should judge, back of his house.
Q. Where was that with reference to the tract
marked on this plat as "Eipinski Homestead"?
164 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
A. It is right back — out here — right here.
Q. Well, on the tract marked EiiDinski Home-
stead? A. Yes. sir.
Q. Did you ever know of him doing any other im-
proving on any portion of the disputed tract ?
A. Xo. sir.
Q. Did you ever know of him asserting any title
to any other portion of that tract?
A. At that time, no, sir, I did not.
0. Xow, is Haines laid off as a town ?
A. It was that spring laid off, and we had it
plotted, and it cost us two dollars a lot.
Q. That is, the citizens of Haines paid for having
it surveyed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you a plat now. and ask you if you ever
saw that plat before?
A. (Witness examines.) I don't know as I have,
that one.
Q. Did you ever see a plat similar to that one ?
A. I have seen something similar to that i^lat of
the town of Haines, all right.
Q. Xow. you say you have exjDended on your prop-
erty there about 87.000 ?
A. Yes, sir: I'm in all of that now.
Q. Can you give an estimate of the cost of the
clearing and building that has been done on the tract
in dispute?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir: I should judge between sixty and
seventv-five thousand dollai-s.
G. W. Hinchman ef dl. 165
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
Cross-examination,
By Mr. JEXXIXGS.— Mr. Vogel, you went to
Haines, you say, in the spring of 1898?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Sol. Ripinski had a store at Haines at that
time, didn't he, and one at Chilkat?
A. And one at Chilkat, yes, sir-.
Q. And when did you build your house there in
Haines ? A. In April.
Q. April, 1898 ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About three thousand dollars you put in there
then? A. Yes, sir; you bet we did.
Q. And you say you didn't know Sol. Ripinski
owned any land there ?
A. Xo, sir; not at that time.
Q. Did you try to find out whether he did or not ?
A. I had no reason to.
Q. You didn't?
A. I never asked any questions; just went right
on and built.
Q. And you never looked at the records, did you,
to find out who had claims there ? A. No, sir.
Q. You never came to Dyea to look at the records
to see if there was any deed in favor of Sol. Ripinski
to that land, did you? A. I did not.
Q. And you didn't care whether there was or not,
did you ?
A. Oh, I don't know; I generally try to content
myself with what I am buying. There was no talk
about it when I went down there ; simply went down
166 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
there for an outing to spend the summer, and it
didn't look very good to me.
Q. You just skirmished around and thought you
saw a lot that 3^ou could take up ?
A. I didn't take it up.
Q. I mean you thought you saw a lot there that
looked good to you, and j'ou thought you would take
it ? A.I did not.
Q. You did take it, though 1 A.I bought it.
Q. You saw a lot there that looked good to you,
then, and you bought it and paid seventy-five dollars
for it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And 3"ou never inquired whether the man that
sold it to you owned it or not ?
A. No, sir; he gave me a quitclaim deed to it.
Q. There wasn't anything on that land at the
time? A. No, sir; not a thing.
Q. Do you mean to sa}^ that jon didn't know any-
thing at that time about Sol. Eipinski claiming the
land there, including that lot that you bought?
A. I did not.
Q. And that you didn't know anything about it
until or before 3^ou built your house there ?
A. I did not.
Q. When did you build your house there ?
A. In April, 1898.
Q. Well, you say you have improvements on there
now worth how much — seven thousand dollars?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is on account of buildings and addi-
tions and improvements you have made there ?
G. W. HincJiman et al. 167
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
A. Yes, sir; I Imilt an addition about four years
ago.
Q. Have you built anything there within the last
three years?
A. Why, a couple of little houses back — an ice-
house and a little warehouse since.
Q. And you put them there after you got a reg-
istered letter signed by myself warning you that Sol.
Eipinski claimed that ground?
A. Yes, I think I had a notice not to do any more
building.
Q. A registered letter, signed by myself?
A. I had a notice not to do any more building; I
didn't pay any attention to it.
Q. And you didn't any of you pay any attention
to Sol. Eipinski 's claim to that land either, did you?
A. Not after that ; no.
Q. I mean in the spring of 1898, when you built?
A. I didn't know anything about Sol. Eipinski
then.
Q. Didn 't know anything about it at all ?
A. No, sir; not until that fall. I met you and
you served notice on me and I said to you that I
didn't want any fight over it, and you told me, you
says, ''You're in for it now, and you can't get out."
Q. You're not talking about the registered letter
now?
A. Yes, sir; I got that, I think, and I'm telling
what you said a year or two after that. I got the let-
ter.
168 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tini Vogel.)
Q. A year or two after that I told you you were in
for it?
A. No, sir ; that fall ; the first time I ever met you
you came down and served notice yourself individ-
ually on me right out in the street there, and I said
I didn't know anything about the business, and didn't
want to have any fight about it, and you said, "You're
in now, and I can't declare you out."
Q. When was that?
A. Some time later, I believe, in September.
Q. Of what year?
A. Of 1898. I wouldn't swear it was September,
but it was later on — I know it was quite stormy at the
time.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Just a moment, Mr. Vogel.
What was the condition of the ground there on this
tract, Mr. Vogel, as to whether or not there was tim-
ber on it ?
A. Well, there was nothing but big stumps where
I was ; I located on the worst-looking place in town.
Q. You didn't see Sol. Ripinski up there swinging
the axe and trying to get the stumps out, did you ?
A. No, sir ; not with him.
Q. You never saw him doing any of that kind of
work, did you?
A. I never saw him on that strip at all.
Q. Was the tract covered with timber when you
first went there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of timber?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 169
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
A. Hemlock, and spruce, and lots of alders in the
swamps around there.
Q. And it is entire!}^ cleared off now ?
A. Well, around my portion of the town it is
cleared.
Q. What portion of the town isn't cleared ?
A. Well, two or three blocks back there is little
scrubby timber around.
Q. Any on this tract? A. No.
Q. This tract is entirely cleared then?
A. Yes, with the exception of a few stumps.
Q. And by whom has that tract been cleared?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. By the people owning the property.
:Q. You never saw Sol. Ripinski up there clear-
ing any portion of it, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear of him doing any clearing?
A. I did not.
Q. Ever hear of any one doing any clearing on
his behalf? A. I did not.
Q. The street that is marked on this plat "Main
Street"?
A. That 's the main thoroughfare that goes up the
Stuckky, main road going towards the Porcupine.
Q. How about Second Street?
A. That's a fine street, yes, sir.
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. What about Third Avenue?
Same objection as last above.
A. Well, there is a trail there that Hinchman
uses ; wagons don 't go through there.
170 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
Q. What about Fourth Avenue"?
A. Wagons go through there all right.
Q. And that is used by the people of Haines as a
thoroughfare, is it %
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about Fifth and Sixth Avenues? Are
they used by the people of Haines as streets and
thoroughfares'?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Vogel, Mr. Lyons has
asked you if you saw Sol. Ripinski on this tract clear-
ing with an axe ; you have seen other people digging
around there, have you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. There were quite a number clearing land
there ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With their axes and grub-hoes and crews,
clearing off land?
A. I suppose most of them done it themselves,
some of them hired, of course.
Q. Mr. Vogel, if Sol. Ripinski had come down
there and took possession of your house and went to
clearing off your lot and told you to get off, what
would you have said to him ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. I would tell him the same as I told you.
Q. What would you have told him — just let him
have possession of your lot, wouldn 't you ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 171
(Testimonj" of Tim Vogel.)
A. No, sir.
Q. You would have resisted witli force any at-
tempt of his to come on to your property there, or
what you claim?
A. Yes, sir; or any other man; you have got to
show me.
Q. Then you speak for others, and say the same
thing for them ? A.I certainly do.
Objected to as not proper cross-examination, irrel-
evant and immaterial.
Q. Mr. Vogel, you testified that the citizens organ-
ized there in '98 — they organized against Sol. Rip-
inski, didn't they? A. Not that I know of.
Q. What did they organize for?
A. To lay out the town and have it surveyed up.
Q. Didn't you organize to resist the claim of Sol.
Ripinski ?
A. I didn't know the gentleman at the time,
spring of '98.
Q. That was in the spring of 1898 ?
A. Yes, sir ; I went down on the beach and bought
a few canned goods from his brother ; then the second
time when I came back I got acquainted with the
Colonel.
Q. When was that?
A. Along that summer, probably about June when
I met him.
Q. Was that after the famous meeting when you
organized to resist the claim of Sol. Ripinski?
A. That was after I had built.
172 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Vogel.)
Q. You didn't meet Sol. Ripinski until after you
had built ? A. No, sir.
Q. He didn 't know you, then ?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. You don't know that he knew you were build-
ing then? A. I don't know as he did.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — But his brother lived right there
in town, and he could have seen jou building ?
A. Oh, yes ; we were particular friends, his brother
and me, and he lived right there in Haines.
Q. Sol. Ripinski lived in Chilkat at that time ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far is that from Haines?
A. About a mile and three-quarters, I guess.
Q. His brother could have notified you of any
claim of Sol. Ripinski to that land ?
A. Oh, yes; his brother and me were quite
friendly.
Q. And Sol. Ripinski came over to Haines oc-
casionally ?
A. Oh, yes ; I suppose he was over, but I never met
him until some time during that summer.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You don't know, as a mat-
ter of fact whether his brother ever did notify him
that you were building there?
A. I do not.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 173
[Testimony of H. Fay, Further Cross-examination.]
H. FAY, being called for further cross-examina-
tion by counsel for the defendant, testified as follows :
(By Mr. JENNINGIS.)
Q. Mr. Fay, I would like to ask you when it was
that you first heard that Mr. Ripinski was claiming
that land where you have your lots?
A. Well, I think it was in the fall of 1898, or the
spring of 1899.
Q. When you took up that lot, did you make any
examination of the records to see who owned that
land?
A, No, sir ; not the records — I applied to the local
authorities, the local residents, to find out.
Q. Who were the local residents there at that
time — I thought you were the first one there?
A. The Missionary.
Q. Mr. Warne? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else?
A. I also applied to Billy Dickinson to show me
where the ground w^as his mother claimed.
Q. You didn't look at the records to see whether
Sol. Eipinski had any claim there, did you?
A. There were no records there.
Q. If you had seen on the records a deed, a con-
veyance to Sol. Eipinski of the land between the
Presbyterian Mission and Blind Isaac's house, you
wouldn't have taken up your lot there, would you?
A. No ; may I see that deed ?
174 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. No, I'm asking you ; would j^ou have taken that
lot up ?
A. Let's see — just ask that question again?
Q. If you had seen on the records a deed from
Mrs. Sarah Dickinson to Sol. Eipinski conveying all
the land lying between the Mission and Bling Isaac's
house and running back to include fifteen acres, you
wouldn't have located there, would you?
A. No, sir.
Bedirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— If you had seen a deed, Mr. Fay,
by anybody, to a piece of Government land that there
was nothing but the deed to show for it, absolutely no
occupation, no improvements, nothing to indicate that
the party making it had any authority to make it,
would you think that would prevent you or anybody
else from locating the land that it covered?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know anything about that deed that
counsel refers to, do you ?
A. Why, I seen a deed that Sol. Ripinski was try-
ing to get up after he laid claim to the ground there.
Q. When was that?
A. That was in the commissioner's court at
Juneau; I don't recollect, but I think it was in 1899.
Q. Did you know what that deed described?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who executed it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before whom was it executed?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 175
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Before Sol. Ripinski; lie was the notary and
acknowledged it himself.
Q. He executed it for himself, then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was the grantee and also the notary that
took the acknowledgment ?
A. Yes, sir; I haven't seen this deed; I don't
know whether that's it or not.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— If you had seen a deed, a
paper conveyance signed by Mrs. Dickinson, no mat-
ter who it was executed before, conveying this land to
Sol. Ripinski, would you have attached any im-
portance to it?
A. That would depend upon when the deed was
made.
Q. If you had seen it at the time, the time you put
your tent on that lot and took up this lot, wouldn't
you have paid any attention to that claim of owner-
ship?
A. I would certainly read it and take some notice
of it, yes.
Q. You wouldn't have located there if you had
seen such a deed, would you?
A. If I saw a deed like that, I wouldn't have paid
any more attention to it than I would to anything
else, for the simple reason that the deed was made out
after we located there — the same deed that was in
the commissioner's court.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, answer my questions without
any circumlocution or evasion — ^
176 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Counsel for plaintiffs objects to the insinuation
of Mr. Jennings, and insists that the witness has
answered in good faith and without evasion or any-
thing else of the kind.
Q. I asked you, sir, if you had seen a deed, a paper
conveyance signed by Sarah Dickinson conveying all
the land lying between the Mission and Blind Isaac's
house to Sol. Ripinski, would you have paid any at-
tention to it ?
A. I wouldn't, if it was a deed like that ; no, sir.
Q. I didn't say anything to you about what kind
of a deed it was ; I asked you if you would have paid
any attention to such a deed as that, a paper convey-
ing to Sol. Ripinski all the land lying between the
Presbyterian Mission and Blind Isaac's house, would
you have paid any attention to it?
A. Xo, I would not.
Q. Then, what did you mean by saying a little
while ago, before Mr. Lyons took you on redirect ex-
amination, that you would have paid some attention
to it?
A. Simply because I knew that deed was made
out after the original locators there located there —
that deed has been in evidence before, Mr. Jennings.
Q. That's the best answer you can give to that
question ?
A. Yes, sir : I thought that deed was a botch.
Q. Did you see that deed made out, sir?
A. No.
0. Do you know who made it out?
A. Xo, sir; I do not.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 177
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Do you know when it was made ouf^
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. How do you know, if you didn't see it?
A. Because, sir, I was at CMlkat at the time Sol.
Ripinski wanted to get Baldwin to witness it.
Q. Do you mean to swear that the deed wasn't
made out at the time it purports to have been made ?
A. Yes, sir; I do.
Q. How long was that deed made out after you
located that lot?
A. Well, the deed wasn't made out until after we
made the locations there.
Q. Well, how long after ?
A. I don't know how long after.
Q. Well, give us — you say you know the time
when Grant Baldwin was called in to witness the
deed; how long was that after you made your loca-
tions ?
A. I know we located there before he got that
ground.
Q. Answer that question, Mr. Fay, how long after
you located that lot on December 14th, 1897, was it
that that deed was made out?
A. That I don't know.
Q. You testified, just now, sir, that at the time
Grant Baldwin was called in to witness that deed
you had made your locations, didn't you?
A. I knew at the time it was after our locations.
Q. Well, how long after?
A. I can't say.
Q. The same day? A. I don't know.
178 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Was it a week after"? A. I don't know.
Q. Was it a montli after ?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Then you don't remember an3^tliing about it,
do you 1 Now, Mr. Fay, after you located this ground
on the 14th day of December, 1897, you went back to
Chilkat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long after you located that you went back
to Chilkat?
A. I don't know ; it took us some time to make our
investigations in regard to finding where the ground
was that Mrs. Dickinson claimed, and we were shown
by her son Billy Dickinson, and also to find where the
Mission line was and if there was any claim to the
ground or any one he might know of.
Q. I asked you how long it was after 3^ou located
your ground that you went back to Chilkat — that's an
easy question, Mr. Fay, just answer me that.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Was it the same day, Mr. Fay?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Was it the next day? A. I don't know.
Q. And you are positive that at the time you went
back to Chilkat on the 14th day of December, that
Sol. Ripinski didn't own that land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you swear to that — that he didn't have that
deed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you swear to that just as positively as you
do to anything else you have testified to in this case ?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 179
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. If that's false, everything else j^ou have
testified to is false ?
Objected to as unfair, insulting, and not proper
cross-examination or anything else.
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Well, you're just as positive of that as any-
thing else you have sworn to?
A. That's what I say — ^he didn't have that deed
when we located that ground.
Q. Don't you know, sir, that that deed was ex-
ecuted long before you located that ground I
A. I know it was not.
Q. Didn't you talk with Mrs. Sarah Dickinson
about it ? A. I did.
Q. And did she tell you she didn't own that land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, how much interest have you
got in this lawsuit? A. I have one lot there.
Q. You have put in about five thousand dollars
you said? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, in buildings and improvements?
A. Yes, sir; approximately.
Q. Now, Mr. Fay, if this deed had not been ex-
ecuted before the 14th day of December, 1897, the
time you say you went back to Chilkat, could it have
been put on record at Dyea on the 14th day of De-
cember ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and instruct the witness not to answer the
question unless counsel is fair enough to the witness
to state his evidence as it is and also to exhibit the
deed to the witness.
180 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. You refuse to answer the question %
A. I do by advice of my attorney.
Q. Could it have been brought up here to Skaguay
by the 15th day of December ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not proper cross-examination.
A. I presume it could have.
Q. On the 16th day of December, could it have
been gotten up here by the 16th ?
A. I presume so.
Q. How far is Chilkat from Dyea ?
A. I presiune about twenty miles.
Q. Was there any means of communication be-
tween those places except by steamer?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any wharf at Haines at the time ?
A. No, sir.
Q. No means of conununication except what I
have mentioned ?
A. No, not other than boats — no mode of travel
except that. .: ?'2]
Q. Mr. Fay, I understood you to say, and to
swear positively that Grant Baldwin came up there
and witnessed that deed after you got back to Chilkat
on the 14th day of December ? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't swear to that? A. No, sir.
Q. Why, sir, I understood jom to say that you
located your lot and went from there back to Chil-
kat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after you got back on the 14th day of De-
G. W. Hinchman et al. 181
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
cember, Grant Baldwain was called in to witness that
deed? A. I didn't say on that day; no, sir.
Q. Well, then, you said after that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But how long after you're not willing to say?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you can't tell how long it was, whether
a day, a week or a month ? A. No, sir.
Q. Nor whether it was the same day or a week
later?
A. No, sir; you must remember that's ten years
ago.
Q. Yes, but you remember it was the 14:th day of
December, 1897, mighty well, don't you, that you
located your lot?
A. That's impressed on my mind because I went
there at that time and —
Q. And you remember about Grant Baldwin com-
ing in to witness that deed, and you know, sir, that
that deed is a very important matter in this contro-
versy, and yet your mind can't go back to it enough
to locate the time you returned to Chilkat between a
week and a month — is that right ? A. Yes, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Did Mrs. Dickinson or anyone
else have possession of that property that you now oc-
cupy when you went there ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone at all have possesson of it ?
Q. As I understood you to say, that was virgin
forest there, virgin public domain?
A. Yes, sir.
182 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Q. Did you think Mrs. Dickinson would have any
power or right to convey that land to anyone if she
wasn't in possession of it?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
Question withdrawn.
[Testimony of John G. Morrison, for the Plaintiffs.]
JOHN G. MORRISON, a witness called on behalf
of the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testified as
follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — State your name, residence, and
occupation.
A. John G. Morrison; Haines, Alaska; occupa-
tion, hotel and saloon business.
Q. Are you acquainted with Solomon Ripinski,
the defendant in this case ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have kno^Ti him about five or six years or
more.
Q. When did you first go to Haines ?
A. I landed there the first of March, 1899.
Q. Have you lived there ever since?
A. From October, 1899, I have lived there pretty
much all the time, yes.
Q. You own some property or premises there, do
you ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What ground do you own there ?
A. I own a half interest in Lot No. 1 in Block 1,
and also in this lot here marked Lot No. 16 in Block 1.
G. W. Rincliman et al. 183
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. You say you own a half interest in Lot 1 in
Block 1% A. Yes, sir ; also this Lot 16.
Q. Have done any improvements on those lots
since you purchased them ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From whom did you purchase those lots ?
A. From George Kiernan.
Q. Did you purchase both lots from him ?
A. A half interest ; yes, sir.
Q. And you own an undivided one-half interest
in those lots at the present time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Lots numbered 1 and 16 in Block No. 1?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when did you become interested in those
two lots?
A. In October, 1899, I think, or the first of No-
vember ; I think it was the last of October.
Q. Do you know who the original locators of those
lots were?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Kiernan bought this lot No. 1 in Block one
from Spooner — this lot he said he located there.
Q. That is, located Lot No. 16? A. Yes, sir,
Q. What improvements have you placed or done
on those lots since you became interested in them?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, this building here was in course of erec-
tion vdien I bought in.
Q. Indicate to the Referee, Mr. Morrison, what
that is?
184 Solomon Bipinsliy vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. This is the Hotel Northern on this lot here.
Q. On the southeasterly corner, or the southerly
end of Lot No. 1, isn't if? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was in course of construction when you
purchased it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What other buildings have you constructed
there ?
A. Well, an icehouse about sixteen by twenty on
this rear lot, No. 16, and I built a house on it about
fourteen by twenty-four, with an addition, kitchen to
it, that cost me about six hundred dollars and the ice-
house cost about a hundred dollars.
Q. What have all of those buildings and improve-
ments you have cost you and your co-owner, approxi-
mately ?
A. Well, I should judge in the neighborhood of
four or five thousand dollars without the furniture,
just the buildings.
Q. Now, when you were constructing those build-
ings, did Mr. Ripinski protest against your building
them'?
A. In May, 1903, when I was building this little
house here where I'm living I had a letter signed by
R. W. Jennings — I don't think he ever signed it
though.
Q. Don't think he was the one that wrote that^
A. No; it was a registered letter I got in the post-
office —
Q. Was that the first protest you ever had from
anyone on behalf of Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 185
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Q. You had done considerable building prior to
that time?
A. Yes, they were all pretty well completed by
that time.
Q. And how long had you been in possession of
the ground at that time ?
A. Well, from the fall of 1899 to May, I think, of
1902 or 1903.
Q. And Mr. Ripinski lived there in the town of
Haines, and nex^er during all of that time when the
building was going on made any protest against it?
A. I never heard of it if he did.
Q. He was living there almost continuously?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew him quite well during all of
that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear of Mr. Ripinski during
that time, doing any improvement on any other part
of this tract except the most easterly portion marked
here "Ripinski Homestead"? A. Never.
Q. Did you ever know of him laying any claim
to any other portion of that tract until you received
the letter from, Mr. Jennings?
A. Oh, yes, I heard he laid claim to it and had a
lawsuit and lost out on it prior to that.
Q. Did you know what lot or parcel he had the
lawsuit over?
A. No, I don't know anything about that.
Q. Mr. Ripinski failed financially in Haines some
time ago, didn't he, Mr. Morrison?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
186 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And made an assignment for the benefit of
Ms creditors, didn't he?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, not the
best evidence, and leading.
Q. Well, he sold out at auction, made an assign-
ment and went into the hands of a receiver?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who bought his property at that sale, do you
know ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and not
the best evidence.
A. I bought it in for somebody else.
Q. At whose instance and for whom did you buy?
A. John F. Malony, of Juneau.
Q. For whom was John F. Malony acting at the
time?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant to any
issue in this case.
A. I don't know, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
Ripinski in regard to that matter?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial to any
issue in this case.
A. No, I think not.
Q. Did he ever tell you he was afraid he w^as
going to lose his lot there in Haines, which he occu-
pies?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant,' and
leading, and an attempt to put the words into the
witness' mouth.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 187
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. Well, the clay of the sale Malony told me to
bid as high as five hundred dollars —
Objected to as hearsay.
— and if I remember right it went over five hun-
dred dollars and Ripinski told me he was afraid he
was going to lose it and I went higher than the rest
and bid the property in.
Q. What property did you buy in?
Objected to as inunaterial and irrelevant and not
the best evidence.
A. The store and property.
Q. He didn't pretend to sell and you didn't buy
in for Malony any other part of this tract ?
A. No, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. Mr. Ripinski knew you were buying it in
for Malony, didn't he'?
Objected to as leading, immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I don't know.
Q. He didn't ask you to buy in any more or any
other property except that where his store and im-
provements were?
Objected to as iimnaterial, irrelevant and leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. He didn't tell you at the time that he owned
any other property there did he?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you are quite familiar with the town of
Haines are you not, Mr. Morrison?
A. Yes, sir.
188 Soloynon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Q. How long did you say you had lived there?
A. Since the fall of 1899.
Q. Can you state approximately what expendi-
tures have been made on this tract in dispute, by the
occupants of that tract?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I should say between fifty and sixty thousand
dollars, more or less — I think between fifty and
sixty thousand.
Q. Is that settlement down there — how is it laid
out?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, the lots are footing on Main Street,
some of them all the way out, and then there is some
lots facing on what they call Dalton Street, opened
up, and some laid off in avenues there.
Q. It is laid off as a town, is it?
A. I presume so.
Q. Platted into lots and blocks, streets and
avenues? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Calling your attention now to the streets laid
off on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, is Main Street used
as a public thoroughfare by the people of the town
of Haines ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Second Avenue ? A. Yes, sir.
Same objection as last above stated.
Q. Opened up as a public thoroughfare ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Third Avenue?
G. W. Einchman et al. 189
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. Well, there is a trail on Third Avenue, they
travel it some.
Objected to and move to strike the answer on the
grounds above stated.
Q. How about Fourth Avenue"?
A. There's people living all in through here.
Fourth Avenue, all in through there.
Q. What about Fifth Avenue?
Same objection as last above.
A. About the same as this, none of that graded
out there. None of those are graded much there.
Q. Well, when you say none of them what do you
mean?
A. Well, there is a road cut through, but none of
those are graded out.
Q. Well, when you refer to a street there, state,
so the Referee can get your answer, — what ones do
you mean weren't graded out?
A. From Second Avenue up they aren't graded
out good.
Q. They are used however as streets and thor-
oughfares by the people of Haines?
A. Yes, sir, they are used as streets.
Q. You went there in the fall of 1899?
A. I did.
Q. When you went there, was this disputed tract
cleared or not?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Oh, there was brush over some of it, and some
of it I suppose was cleared.
Q. Is it all cleared now?
190 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Same objection.
A. Pretty well cleared now; there ma}^ be some
stmnps on some parts there.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Morrison, you say that
you bought a half interest in parcel No. 1 in Block
No. 1 from a man by the name of Kiernan'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was there on that particular piece of
property on this survey No. 573 at the time you
bought?
A. Well, there was the Hotel Northern going up.
Q. That large house in front there?
A. That's the Spooner house.
Q. I'm not talking about that; this lower one —
that large house there that is nearly square in front,
was that there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else was there?
A. This building here.
Q. Was there anything else?
A. There was a barn on Lot No. 1 there.
Q. Yes; the same as it is now, that was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there anything else on there?
A. Well, a water-closet in the rear of it.
Q. Looking at Lot No. 1 in Block 1, I see three
spaces marked there as representing buildings —
were those there when you bought from Kiernan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had nothing to do with the erection of
them, did you?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 191
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. I did with the erection of this in the rear, not
with those others.
Q. You mean you liave since added some to the
hotel in front — is that what you mean?
A. No, the hotel was being built there at the
time.
Q. Well, are there any other buildings on lot 1,
Block 1, now that were not there when you bought
in from your man Kiernan as you say?
A. No, sir, excepting the water-closet I built
since, there is two now in the rear instead of one.
Q. Back of the saloon, one of these spaces here
is the water-closet?
A. No, excuse me; that's what I call the icehouse
and this is the cow barn, only all of the buildings
there arn't marked, those I built after I bought in.
Q. Now, what is the other lot you have an inter-
est in? A. This one.
Q. Parcel 16 in Block 1 — and you half a half
interest in them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you buy that last one ?
A. Kiernan located that in the fall of 1899 —
Q. When did you buy that?
A. About that time.
Q. In the fall of 1899 you bought a half interest
in that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I see on that lot two places that apparently
indicate buildings, were they on there when you
bought?
A. No, sir, both of them were built since that.
192 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Q. When was the building built that we now see
on this plat Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 lying to the
north of that oblique line running through that lot?
A. That was built in the fall of 1899.
Q. Did you build any — when was the large build-
ing on that lot constructed f
A. In May or June, 1903.
Q. And it was while you were building that
building that you got a registered letter from me as
attorney for Sol. Eipinski? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Morrison, to go back to lot No. 1
in Block 1; the hotel you have there isn't on any
of the land claimed by Sol. RijDinski, is if? That is
on what is called the Dalton acre, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know at the time you bought from
Kiernan that that was on the Dalton acre?
A. I did.
Q. And you know that Sol. Ripinski doesn't lay
any claim to the Dalton acre ?
A. I never knew anything about what he claimed
at the time.
Q. Didn't you know at the time that he didn't
lay any claim to the Dalton acre ?
A. I did not.
Q. Didn't you, sir, know that Sol. Ripinski
claimed this whole tract now in dispute in 1899?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you know, sir, that he had a lawsuit about
those very premises there?
A. Not at that time, no, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 193
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
Q. You know that that suit was brought a year
before that, don't jo\x%
A. I didn't know a thing about it.
Q. Did you examine the records at that time to
see who owned any lands north of the Mission tract?
A. I examined the records as to Lot 1 in Block
1, the deed that Kiernan got from Spooner.
Q. You simply examined, just examined the deed
from Spooner to Kiernan? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that say the lot was located on the Dalton
acre? A. I couldn't swear as to that.
Q. And that's the only thing you examined, was
that deed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had the deed to you from Kiernan
for the same property made out the same way — is
that the idea — to get the same description?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you neyer went to any records to look
up whether Spooner had any title or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. At the time you bought from Kiernan, you
saw you knew that Sol. Ripinski had had a suit oyer
some property there and lost out ?
A. No, sir, I didn't know it then.
Q. When did you find that out?
A. Some time after that.
Q. Well, how long after?
A. It might haye been some time that fall or
winter, or the spring following.
Q. At the time you built or located on parcel No.
16 in Block 1 you knew it, didn't you?
194 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of John G. Morrison.)
A. I knew he claimed something around there;
didn't know that he claimed that at the time.
Q. Well, Mr. Morrison, you knew he had a suit
about it?
A. Yes, sir, I knew it and I thought he was dead
enough too.
Q. I suppose you're aware that people come to
life again sometimes? A. Why, sure.
Q. You never consulted a lawyer to find out
whether Sol. had any right of appeal, or whether that
was a final settlement of his claim or not?
A. Never; no, sir.
[Testimony of S. J. Weitzman, for the Plaintiffs.]
S. J. WEITZMAN, a witness called on behalf of
the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testified as fol-
low^s on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Please state your name, resi-
dence, and occupation.
A. S. J. Weitzman; residence, Haines, Alaska;
occupation, merchant.
Q. How long have you resided at Haines, Mr.
Weitzman? A. Since 1899.
Q. What time in 1899?
A. I came in 1898 in November or December — I
don't remember exactly the time — and made a loca-
tion there, and then I returned to Skagway and came
back after New Year's, some time in January or
February, I'm not positive just to the day.
Q. You say you made a location there — what do
you mean by location?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 19o
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. For a residence and business.
Q. Where did you make your location?
A. Where I am now at the present time in busi-
ness.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
1, and I ask you if you're familiar with the ground
represented on that plat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are familiar with the tract in controversy
in this case are you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You're one of the plaintiffs in this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with Solomon Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what lots did you locate at Haines in
1899?
A. I made a location on this lot right here, desig-
nated on this map number three in Block No. 1.
Q. Did you make any other location there at the
time? A. No, sir.
Q. How did you locate that lot?
A. I put up a location notice.
Q. What else did you do?
A. I fenced it all around.
Q. You fenced your lot? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you fence it with?
A. With posts, and then I got wire and fenced all
of it with wires.
Q. How many stringers of wire did you use?
A. Two stringers.
Q. How much of the lot did you fence?
A. Fenced the entire lot.
196 Solomon Ripinskjj vs.
(Testimony of S. J. AYeitzman.)
Q. And you say you also posted a location notice
there *? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that notice describe the lot you located*?
A. Well, it described this parcel of ground; I
didn't know at the time what this parcel would be
numbered, but I claimed fifty feet by a hundred and
fort}^ feet.
Q. When did you construct this fence around
your lot ?
A. It was the time I j)ut up my notice.
Q. And when was thaf?
A. In November or December, 1898.
Q. Was Mr. Ripinski in Haines at that time?
A. Not Sol. Ripinski, an}^ ^^ay, for me to see him.
Q. Was his brother there?
A. His brother was there at the time, yes, sir.
Q. Where was Sol. Ripinski at that time?
A. He was in Chilkat.
Q. Did you construct any buildings on your lot
there at that time, Mr. Weitzman?
A. Not at that time.
Q. When did you build after that?
A. I was at Skagway at that time ; I was in busi-
ness there at the time, had a store there and after
New^ Year's; I couldn't say whether it was in Janu-
ary or February, 1899, I came to Haines and then I
put up tents on these lots and ]3ut up a hotel, the one
marked Porcupine Hotel and one for the store.
Q. Was Mr. Ripinski the defendant then at
Haines? A. I didn't see him at Haines.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 197
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Did you do any other improving of the lots
there? A. None at that time.
Q. Well, did you at all'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. AVhen was the next time you did any improv-
ing?
A. I built in the spring of 1899, huilded up houses
where I was; stayed in the tents until I built.
Q. What kind of a house did you then build?
A. Frame house for the store.
Q. How large was that building?
A. That was sixteen by thirty.
Q. How many stories was it?
A. One stor}^
Q. What was the approximate cost of that build-
ing?
A. Well, that time of course it was very expen-
sive building, — about a thousand dollars.
Q. And you built that building in the spring of
1899? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Mr. Ripinski in Haines at that time?
A. At that time I believe he was, yes.
Q. Did he make any protest against you building
there?
A. Well, I had at that time purchased already
that ground from Mrs. Dalton, in the spring.
Q. You purchased from Mrs. Dalton?
A. Yes, the same spring.
Q. Did Ripinski lay any claim to the land?
A. No.
Q. Has he ever laid any claim to it?
198 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of S., J. Weitzman.)
A. I believe he didn't lay claim to me personally;
but I understood at that time he was claiming some
ground and I didn't know whether this was the
ground or not; I know I bought from Mrs. Dalton
and paid her the money so it was with the consent
of Mr. Ripinski I made the bargain, I made the bar-
gain in his store.
Q. He was present w^hen you made the bargain
with Mrs. Dalton?
A. I'm not sure whether he was or — you see
when I paid Mrs. Dalton for the lot I heard at the
time there would be a lawsuit about who claimed it
with the people in the spring of 1899, and so as to
be sure I wouldn't come into the lawsuit with Mr.
Ripinski if I paid out money Mrs. Bree had Mrs.
Dalton as a witness and said with the consent of
Mr. Ripinski I wouldn't be in that lawsuit.
Q. The tract that Sol. Ripinski now claims would
include or includes a small portion of your house,
does it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has he ever made any claim of that portion
of the tract to you? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you own any other lots in the town of
Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. Lot here in Block 2 — lots 4 and 5, and I also
own lots in Block 1 number 12 and 13.
Q. Now, lots 12 and 13 in Block No. 1, you
located those yourself, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. How did you acquire possession of them?
A. I bought them from the original locator Mr.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 199
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Cronin, lie was the original locator I see on the plat
there — and he had improvements up there, a hotel,
and I bought all his improvements and these two
lots.
Objected to on the ground that the complaint al-
leges those are the lots of R. L. Weitzman, and this
is S. J. Weitzman.'
Q. R. L. Weitzman is who — who is R. L. Weitz-
man? A. She is my wife.
Q. You own those lots, do you?
A. Mrs. Weitzman owns them.
Q. And she is your wife? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever done any imjoroving of those
two lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What?
A. I put up two houses on them and cleared
them.
Q. What approximately has it cost you to clear
the lots and put up the buildings you placed thereon ?
A. About fifteen hundred dollars.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever lay claim to those lots
while you were improving them and building on
them? A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone on his behalf ever lay any claim
to those lots? A. No, sir.
Q. Nobod3% neither himself or any one for him,
ever protested against your taking possession of
those lots? A. No, sir.
Q. Never laid any claim to them to you, while
you were building there? A. No, sir.
200 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Now, what other lots — jow. say you claim lots
in Block 2 ? A. Number four and five.
Q. Lot No. 4 is marked "Ida Johnson"; do you
own that?
A. No, I sold that lot to Mrs. Ida Johnson; she
is the third party that's owned it.
Q. You sold that lot to her?
A. No; I sold it to another person; they sold to
Fay, and he sold to Mrs. Ida Johnson.
Q. Then you don't own it now?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did 3^ou locate those lots? A. No, sir.
Q. How did you acquire them?
A. I bought them from the original locator, Mr.
Wilson.
Q. Have you improved them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What improvements did you place on them
before you sold?
A. I put up a house on No. 4 and I leased this lot
out a long time ago and the man I leased to he put
up a cabin and it is there yet, and they cleared out
the timber and stiunps.
Q. How much of an expenditure did you make
on those lots? A. About five hundred dollars.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever assert ownership in
and to those lots while you were improving them?
A. Not to me.
Q. Did he or anyone on his behalf ever protest
against your clearing or building there ?
A. No, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et aJ. 201
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Now, YOU have known Mr. Ripinski how long?
A. Since the winter of 1899, at the time I came
the second time to Haines.
Q. Do you know what premises have been occu-
pied by Mr. Ripinski in Haines ? A. I do.
•Q. Where are they located*?
A. Right here it is located, where his store is,
and that little ground above the house.
Q. Well, his store — point to where that is on this
map?
A. This will be his store, and his icehouse is right
up here.
Q. On the easterly, the store is on the south-
easterly end of the tract marked "Ripinski Home-
stead" is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the icehouse is on the northeasterly por-
tion of the same tract? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the garden you say is to the west — that's
a garden? A. Behind the house, yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever have a fence around
that piece ? A. Yes, he did.
q. When?
A. It was in 1898 the time when I first came up
to Haines and I stopped in Mr. Ripinski 's house
right up here, and his brother was in charge of the
store and he thought people might come in and jump
It and so he advised him he better fence it what he's
got, and the next day whether he had that wire
there or got it I don't know, but he commenced and
wired it up to the corner at that time.
202 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. AYeitzmau.)
Q. Indicate on this map what was inclosed in the
wire fence so the stenogra^Dher can get it in the rec-
ord.
Q. Well, the wire fence was inclosed — yon see
there was a tent up here in front of the store up to
Main Street owned by a man by the name of Briej
about twenty-five feet away at that time from Mr.
Ripinski's store, and right above this tent he started
in to put up his wire fence up to about that far.
Q. How far — hoW' far from the westerly end of
the tract marked "Ripinski Homestead" on that
tract?
A. I should say it was at the time about two
hundred and fifty feet, something like that.
Q. From the store? A. Yes, sir, westerly.
Q. Westerly, and then it ran northerly, then
back easterly and then to Mr. Ripinski's store?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that wire fence inclose any part of this
tract that is now platted out into lots and blocks and
streets?
A. No, sir; there was one case that was tried in
Skagway at court that I was a witness on, and a
man broke in this fence around here.
Q. Well, now, Mr. Weitzman, when I ask you a
question, just answer it and don't be volunteering
any hearsay. Now, you say Mr. Ripinski was
afraid people would come in and jump that prop-
erty?
Objected to on the ground that the witness didn't
G. W. Hinchman et al. 203
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
state anything of the kind; he said lie had that con-
versation with Mr. Ripinski.
Q. I understood you to say you had a conversa-
tion with the brother of tlie defendant Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he was occupying those premises at the
time? A. Yes, sir, the store.
Q. Now, what was it he stated to you?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial and hear-
say.
A. Well, we had this talk, and he says he will
bring out wire and fence it up.
Q. And why did he say he was going to fence
that up?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, hearsay
and calling for the conclusion of the witness.
A. It was, I think, barbed wire he was to put
around it, and —
Q. That isn't the question; did you and he have
any conversation that lead up to the fencing of that
parcel there? A. Yes, sir.
Objected to for the same reason as above.
Q. What conversation was that?
Objected to for the same reason.
A. It was to my advice that he went to work and
fastened that fence up.
Q. Why did you advise it?
A. Why, the Porcupine was then struck and
there would be a rush and people would come in on
there and if it wouldn't be fenced it would be occu-
pied by everybody.
204 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Defendant objects to the question, and moves to
strike on the ground that it is irrelevant, immaterial,
hearsay, and not binding on the defendant.
Q. It was with the defendant's brother you had
this conversation you said? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is his given name, do you know?
A. Gabe, we called him.
Q. Well, was Gabe Ripinski at that time repre-
senting the defendant Sol. Eipinski'?
A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and hear-
say, leading, and in no way binding on the defendant.
Q. Did Gabriel tell you, or show you the bounda-
ries of Solomon's claim at that time?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, and
calling for hearsay testimony.
A. He didn't show me particularly the bounda-
ries, but I went out and saw where he fenced it up.
Q. Did you know this Mrs. Sarah Dickinson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
Mrs. Dickinson about what tract of land she owned
in Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Objected to unless the time and place and persons
present are given, and on the further ground that
any conversation with Mrs. Dickinson after her
conveyance to Sol. Eipinski wouldn't be binding on
him at all.
Q. When and where did you have that conversa-
tion? A. In Haines.
Q. When?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 205
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. It was in 1899 once, and then I think I had —
well, it must have been the same year, I had several
conversations with her.
Q. Did you have any conversation with her with
reference to her negotiations or negotiating a sale
of her property to Sol. Eipinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and not
binding on the defendant.
Q. What did she say with respect — what was
that conversation now, wath respect to her negotiat-
ing that sale %
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and hearsay,
and not binding on the defendant.
A. She went out and showed me. I went with
her, and she showed me what she sold to Ripinski.
Q. What did she say she had sold to Ripinski?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial and hear-
say, and being after the conveyance not binding in
any manner on the defendant.
A. She showed me particularly the corners w^here
she claimed, and I went with her on that plat of
ground there.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I would like to ask the wit-
ness a few preliminary questions: When was this
conversation had that you are testifying to now*?
A. It was in 1899 some time; I don't know the
date.
Q. Where is Mrs. Dickinson, now?
A. She is dead.
Q. How long has she been dead?
206 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. About a year and a half.
Q. Who was present during that conversation?
A. It was in my own presence.
Q. Anybody else present? A. No, sir.
Q. Where was it? A. In Haines.
Q. Whereabouts?
A. We had that conversation in the store.
Q. Whose store? A. In my store.
By Mr. LYONS. — Well, where did she take you to
show you the corners?
A. She went out and showed me the boundaries
where she claimed she sold to Ripinski, and it was
exactly where that fence stands.
Q. In accordance with the fence you have hereto-
fore described made by Ripinski's brother Gabe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What improvements were made, if any, by
Mrs. Dickinson or Ripinski on that tract inclosed in
that fence, when you first went there?
A. Nothing at all, only that fence was put up in
my presence.
Q. What did it inclose, a house, garden, or what?
A. I couldn't see any garden; there was snow on
the ground, and there was a house he occupied as his
house now, and that tent occupied by Brie.
Q. What was the physical condition of the tract
of land in controversy when you went there, as to
whether or not it was cleared or covered with tim-
ber?
A. It was a wilderness; there was no streets, no
alleys; it was a small little trail there leading up
G. W. Hinchman et al. 207
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
what is now called Main Street, Indian trial, and it
was all grown up with brush, trees, roots and stumps
and the whole town which is now called Haines was
nothing but thickly timber and stumps and so on.
Q. Has it since been cleared?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. The biggest portion of it is now cleared.
Q. What can you say as to whether or not it is
platted and laid out as a town'?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, calling for
the conclusion of the witness, and not the best evi-
dence.
A. When I made this purchase, that was in 1899
in the winter of it, this lot here in Block No. 2, 1 was
perusing the plat of the town and I seen the original
locators marked on this plat so at that time I have
learned they have a plat of it.
Q. I now hand you a map, and ask you if you
have ever seen that map or plat before?
A. Yes, this is a copy of it. '*'
Q. Do you know who made that plat?
A. It was made by Elias Ruud from the copy of
the original made by Fogelstrom.
Q. Elias Ruud is a U. S. Deputy surveyor and
civil engineer, isn't he?
A. Yes, sir; of course on the direct plat made
at first you wouldn't find this strip in it; but all the
lots and blocks and also the names you would find
on it.
208 Solomon Eipinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Plaintiffs now offer this as a certified copy of the
map —
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, not
properly authenticated —
By Mr. LYONS. — Just a moment, Mr. Jennings,
until I make my offer. We will now offer a copy of
the plat of the town of Haines, Alaska, compiled
from the original town plat and actual survey
thereof by Elias Ruud, C. E., certified to by J. J.
Rogers, U. S. Commissioner and exofficio Recorder
and so forth on August 1903.
Objected to as immaterial, incompetent and irrele-
vant, and not being entitled to record, and it not
having been shown to have been described or laid
out hy any one having authority to describe or lay
out the property and because it is not acknowledged.
(Admitted.)
Marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiff's Ex-
hibit No. 2 and ask you if 3^ou ever saAv that plat
before? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. When?
A. When I bought that lot in Block No. 2 —
By Mr. JENNINGS.— We make the general objec-
tion to this supposed plat for the reasons just men-,
tioned as an objection to the introduction of the plat
itself, and to an}^ testimony in regard to it.
Q. You mean to say you saw this particular plat,
or the copy the original copy this one was copied
from in 1898?
A. The original of which this one is a copy.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 209
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. The original made by Fogelstrom?
A. Yes, sir, the original in 1898, when I made the
purchase of this lots 4 and 5 in Block No. 2.
Q. Are you now in possession of Lot 3 in Block
No. l"? A. This here one?
Q. Yes? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Lots 12 and 13 in Block No. 1 ?
A. Yes, sir; Mrs. R. L. Weitzmann, my wife.
Q. And Lot No. 5, in Block No. 2?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you been in possession of all of
those lots during all of the time since you first took
possession of them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I think you gave the dates in another portion
of your testimonj^ when you located these various
lots? A. No.
Q. Well, give them now?
A. I didn't locate ; I bought them.
Q. Well, give the dates you bought them?
A. Lot 4 in Block 2, I bought in 1899, and I
bought Lots 12 and 13 in Block No. 1 also ; that was
in 1901, if I'm not mistaken.
Q. In what month ?
A. The 30th day of September, 1901.
Q. And Lot 3 in Block No. 1, when did you first
acquire possession of that?
A. That I acquired possession of in 1898, in No-
vember or December, as I stated, but I bought them
in the spring of 1899.
Q. Now, have you been in possession of these dif-
ferent lots since you first acquired possession of them
210 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
up until tlie present time, with the exception of Lot
4 in Block No. 2, which you testify you sold?
A. Yes, and a little piece I sold here in Lot 11.
Q. All the remaining portion of the lots you have
been in possession of since you first acquired posses-
sion? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Ripinski has never laid any claim to
those lots, to you? A. No, sir.
A. And he has never protested against you im-
proving the same ? A. No, sir.
Q. Can you give an estimate of the approximate
cost of clearing this disputed tract, and of erecting
all of the buildings that are now situate thereon ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, approximately.
Q. Now, what, in your judgment, has been the ap-
proximate cost of making all of those improvements ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I believe last winter when I made out the com-
plaint and signed to it, I stated about fifty thousand
dollars, and since that, there went up some more im-
provements, so in my estimate it is fifty thousand
dollars —
Q. You needn't mind what you swore to in the
comj)laint — just state as to the improvements now
on the ground?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Approximateh^ over fifty thousand dollars.
Q. What was the approximate cost of the clear-
ing and the buildings erected on this tract in dispute
G. W. Hinchman et al. 211
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
at the date of the isigning of the complaint and com-
mencement of this action ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. About fifty thousand dollars.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What is your name?
A. S. J. Weitzman.
Q. What does the S. stand for? A. Simon.
Q. AVhat does the J. stand for? A. Jacob.
Q. xlnd how do you spell Weitzman?
A. W-e-i-t-z-m-a-n ?
Q. How old are you? A. Forty-five.
Q. What is your nationality ?
A. I am a Hebrew.
Q. Now, you went down there to Haines the first
time in December, 1898?
A. I came down from Skagway in December.
Q. And you stopped as a guest at the house of Sol.
Eipinski, with his brother, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Gabriel Eipin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On this tract of land here marked "Eipinski
Homestead"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He took you in as a guest, didn't he?
A. No, sir ; I stopped with him and paid my hotel
bill.
Q. Did he keep a hotel?
A. He kept a boarding-house and saloon.
Q. How long did you stay there?
A. A few days.
Q. How many days?
212 Solomon Bipinskij vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. Two or three days.
Q. How mucli did you pa}^ him in hotel bill?
A. I can't remember — whatever he said.
Q. Do you swear you paid him for stopping
there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You got pretty well acquainted with him there,
did you?
A. Not the first time I was there — of course, we
were friendly, speaking, and all that.
Q. Xot the tim€ you stayed down there two or
three days. Now, why did you first go down there,
December, 1898?
A. My intention was to — I came up with a stock
of goods to go into Atlin and I had my goods at Skag-
way at the time the alien law was passed in Atlin, and
nobody could interpret the law, and some said that
Americans would have no right to go in business
there, so I opened a store in SkagA\'ay and about that
time Porcupine was struck and I thought it would be
a good place to put in business.
Q. Where — in Porcupine ?
A. Well, no ; at Haines ; that was the place lead-
ing into the Porcupine at the time.
Q. And you went to Haines to look around for a
place to locate, did you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you talked with Mr. Eipinski at that
time about a place where you could locate ?
A. I didn't talk to him just then ; no.
Q. Well, you looked over the ground?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And found what ground was vacant?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 213
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And among the places you found vacant was
the place you located on, was it? A. Correct.
Q. And that was this Lot No. 3 in Block 1, wasn't
It? A. Yes.
Q. And you put up there, located there, in Decem-
ber, 1898? A. Yes.
Q. Did you locate, or buy somebody else out?
A. No, I located.
Q. How did you come to locate on that Dalton
acre ?
A. I didn't have any knowledge at the time there
was any Dalton acre there.
Q. When did you first find out that belonged to
Jack Dalton 's wife?
A. Dalton came in my place in the spring of
1899, and told me at the time I was on his wife's
ground.
Q. What did you do then, — get off ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You settled with Mrs. Dalton, didn't you?
A. I didn't want to settle with her; I told her I
occupied and located that ground.
Q. I didn't ask you what you wanted or didn't
want to do ; you settled with Mrs. Dalton, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When? A. In the same spring.
Q. Spring of 1898? A. No, sir; 1899.
Q. When you located on the Dalton acre, nobody
objected, did they, Mr. Weitzman? A. No, sir.
Q. Mrs. Dalton wasn't there at the time, was she ?
214 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. No.
Q. And Ripin didn't object, did lie, Sol.'s brother,
to your locating there 1 A. No, sir.
Q. But when you found out you were on the Dal-
ton's acre, then you settled with Mrs. Dalton and got
a deed from her? Isn't that true?
A. Well, I will explain that to you how it was —
Q. Never mind explaining, Mr. Weitzman; you
just answer my question, and explain to your counsel.
A. Yes, I settled with her ; otherwise I had to go
into a law^suit about it.
Q. You didn't want a lawsuit with Mrs. Dalton,
and so you settled with her ?
A. I didn't want a lawsuit with Malony.
Q. Well, he didn't own the Dalton acre — you
mean Malony acting for Mrs. Dalton, don't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you find out that Mrs. Dalton owned
the groimd that you were on?
A. I told you Dalton came in my store and told
me I was on his wife's premises.
Q. Did he tell you how his wife got those prem-
ises? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you ask him what claim she had to that
ground ? A. No.
Q. There wasn't any building on that acre where
you located at that time, was there?
A. There was the Spooner hotel.
Q. I say where jou located, on that acre tract?
A. I don't know whether it was on one acre or
G. W. Hinchman et al. - 215
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
two acres; there was only one building there,
Spooner's hotel.
Q. The ground you located on and put up a
building on, there wasn't any building on that ground
when you located, was there? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't it ever occur to you to ask Jack Dalton
how his wife could claim property she wasn 't in pos-
session of?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and not
proper cross-examination.
A. I didn't had any chance to ask him.
Q. What do you mean by that — it only takes a
half a second to ask that question?
A. I'll tell you why; he came in to my place of
business and told me to move off, otherwise he would
take a team of horses and pull me off, and talked
rough — didn't talk gentlemanly at all.
Q. And because he did that you immediately set-
tled? A. No, sir; I didn't.
Q. Didn't you then take steps to find out whether
there was foundation for the claim that Mrs. Dalton
had a right to that acre ?
A. No, sir; I just ordered him out of my store
at the time.
Q. Did you then take any steps to investigate
v/hether Jack Dalton had any claim or right to the
land 3^our building, your house was on ?
A. At the time I built there was no objection to
anything.
Q. After Jack Dalton came in and ordered you
off the ground, did you then take any steps to in-
216 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon}' of S. J. Weitzman.)
vestigate whether Mrs. Dalton had any title to that
ground ? A. No.
Q. No steps at all? A. No, sir.
Q. Yon jnst took his word for it?
A. He came in my store and talked rough; just
came in and asked for me, and I came out, and he
asked if that is Mr. Weitzman, and I told him my
name, and he started in and didn't talk gentlemanl}^
at all, told me to move off or he would take a team
and move me off, and I ordered him out of my place.
Q. Then you settled with him pretty soon after
that? A. No, sir; I did not, Mr. Jennings.
Q. Well, you settled with Mrs. Dalton?
A. In a month or six weeks Mrs. Dalton came in
to my place with Mr. Malony.
Q. Hadn't you taken any steps in the meantime
to find out whether she had any claim to that prop-
erty?
A. I had heard in the meantime there was a law-
suit between Mrs. Dalton and Spooner ; and Spooner
settled with Malony.
Q. You weren't on Spooner 's land, were you?
A. No, sir; I was not.
Q. Because Spooner settled with her is that any
reason why you should settle?
A. Yes, it was a reason enough; because Malony
told me if I didn't settle he would go to Juneau and
bring an action against me and pull me up a half
dozen times before the Juneau court and fix it so 1
couldn't settle anywhere.
G. W. Einchman et al. 217
(Testimoiw of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. And you took his statement that it was Mrs.
Dalton's land and took no steps whatever to find
out Avhether it was really her land or nof?
A. Xothing whatever.
Q. You settled because Jack Dalton told you he
was going to move off your houses with a team if
you didn 't get off ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If Sol. Ripinski had told you he would move
your houses off that ground if you didn't take them
off, I suppose you would have gotten off or settled
with him?
A. Exactly, sir; if he told me that, I would just
as I did with Mrs. Dalton.
Q. You settled with Jack Dalton, though, didn't
you? A. No, sir; I settled with Mrs. Dalton.
Q. You were afraid of him — that's the reason you
got off?
A. Xo, sir ; I told him if he came in my place that
way again I would blow his head off.
Q. Did you have a gun to blow Ms head off with ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You kept a gun there to blow his head off
with, did you ?
Objected to as incomi^etent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not proper cross-examination.
Q. Mr. Weitzman, when you went down to
Haines in 1897, you leased a piece of land from Sol.
Ripinski, didn't 3^ou? A. A piece in 1899.
Q. You leased a piece of land and paid him five
dollars a month rent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that?
218 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. The same piece of ground here, yes, sir.
Q. You entered into an agreement with Sol. Rip-
inski whereby he was to get five dollars a month rent
for that part you occuj)ied; isn't that true?
A. I occupied and was in possession of; yes, sir.
Q. How long did you continue to pay him five
dollars a month rent for that?
A. One or two months.
Q. Then you knew in December of 1898 that Sol.
Ripinski was claiming this land, didn't you — you
paid him rent?
A. I said I paid him that in 1899.
Q. Well, you knew it in 1899?
A. No, sir; I think it was after that.
Q. You iDaid him rent, didn't vou?
A. Yes, sir; for one little piece of ground there.
Q. And some of these houses, these lots, you
bought as late as 1901, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew Sol. Ripinski claimed this
tract of land at that time ? A. No, sir.
Q. You never heard of it at all?
A. Yes, in 1899— late in 1899, I think it was.
Q. Then you knew it, that was the first you knew
of it?
A. That he laid some claim to it, yes, sir ; but, of
course, I didn 't know what tract it was he claimed.
Q. You knew he claimed the land north of the
Mission, didn't you? A. I knew he claimed —
Q. You knew, sir, that Sol. Ripinski claimed the
land that had been settled on by these settlers —
Objected to — counsel for plaintiff obj^ects —
G. W. Hinchman et al. 219
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Didn't you?
— to counsel interrupting the witness before lie com-
pletes his answers. I submit that counsel should
allow the witness to complete his answers.
Q. Just repeat the question, Mr. Gillette.
(Referee reads last question of counsel for defend-
ant.) Didn't you?
A. Yes, I heard there was a lawsuit and he
claimed it.
Q. You knew that in 1899? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't you know it before that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you mean to swear that you didn't know
before 1899 that Sol. Ripinski claimed the land north
of the Mission? A. No, sir.
Q. You never heard that? A. No, sir.
Q. When did you say it was you began paying
Sol. Ripinski rent? A. In 1899.
Q. You're sure of that, now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why should you pay him any rent if you were
on the Dalton acre tract and not on his ground at
all?
A. Because I didn't know^ it was the Dalton acre.
Rather than to have any lawsuit I went and asked him
if I could buy some of his property ; that was before I
heard that Dalton claimed it, and I heard in 1899 he
claimed it, and I asked him and he says he can lease
me a piece of property, and I says I wanted to get a
piece of property I can occupj^, and he sa3^s he can't
give me no deed or anything but he can lease it to
me, and after while he would be in shape to sell it.
220 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
and I would have the privilege to buy it. A few
months after that Mrs. Dalton comes in and claims
it.
Q. I thought you said she claimed it pretty soon
after you iirst occupied if?
A. I built in January, and that was some time
along in the spring she claimed it.
Q. And how long was it after you built before
Jack Dalton came into your place and told you to
get off? A. It was in the spring —
Q. How long after — how long, I asked you?
A. About three months — ^^two or three months.
Q. When was it, then, that you entered into the
rental agreement with Sol. Ripinski?
A. That w^as in February, I should say.
Q. About the same time 3'ou entered into the
agreement with Jack Dalton, wasn't it?
A. I made the agreement with Eipinski before.
Q. Before Jack Dalton had come in there and
claimed that land for his wife?
A. I practically didn't know whether Ripinski
claimed it or Dalton. I knew there was a hitch in
it some way, and by me not wanting to have a law-
suit with either one of them I tried to get from the
light party.
Q. You knew, then, that one of the two owned it ?
A. One of them claimed the acre, yes, sir.
Q. And you then offered to settle?
A. No, sir ; I wanted to find the right party.
Q. And in order to make yourself secure, you
G. W. Hinchman et al. 221
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
wanted to get both of tliem, and so you bought from
Mrs. Dalton and rented from Ripinski; is that if?
A. First, I thought it was Ripinski 's acre, and so
I went to work and entered into this agreement with
Ripinski towards buying it or leasing it, and after
that I learned that Mrs. Dalton claimed the acre and
then with the consent of Mr. Ripinski I bought from
Mrs. Dalton and paid her the money.
Q. And Ripinski told you afterwards that he
didn't own it? A. No.
Q. How long was that after Sol. Ripinski 's
brother had taken your advice and built that fence
you have been talking about a little while ago?
A. I should say four or five months.
Q. Didn't you testify a few moments ago that
Mr. Ripinski 's brother had built a fence there that
didn't come up to jowv land at all, and didn't you,
sir, delineate a — didn't you take a pencil there and
indicate and say that fence ran up about two hun-
dred feet from the beach on that tract of land called
the Ripinski Homestead? A. Correct.
Q. That didn't include this lot you settled on,
did it? A. No, not that fence.
Q. You didn't think that fence indicated all that
Sol. Ripinski claimed, did you?
A. I learned afterwards that he made some kind
of a purchase from an Indian woman, Mrs. Dickin-
son, and an acre has been sold to Mrs. Dalton, but at
that time —
Q. You learned that he purchased an acre — how
was that?
222 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. Anyway, I heard it had been purchased and
Mrs. Dalton and Ripinski claimed it; I couldn't make
out at the time where it was or anything about it.
Q. Mr. Weitzman, didn't you in answer to Mr,
Lyons a little while ago, say that Sol. Ripinski 's
brother Gabe built a fence that ran up about two
hundred feet on this black tract, in these black lines
called '' Ripinski 's Homestead," as indicating how
much land Sol. claimed *?
A. Occupied at the time.
Q. How much he claimed?
A. I don't know anything but what he occupied
whatever.
Q. And you afterwards found that wasn't cor-
rect, that Sol. claimed other land there?
A. I didn't finding anything of the kind, sir.
Q. Well, 3^ou paid him rent didn't you?
A. I went to work and paid him rent; yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Weitzman, I suppose you and Mrs.
Dickinson were great friends, weren't you?
A. No, sir.
Q. She came into your store quite often — you
were quite chummy with her?
A. No, sir; she came in like any other of the In-
dians and bought what she wanted and went away.
Q. Well, she came in your store and you had this
conversation you have just testified to on direct ex-
amination? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was when, did you say?
A. That was in 1899, if I'm not mistaken.
Q. Who was present besides yourself and her?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 223
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. It was in my store; I don't know whether
there was anybod}" else present; don't recollect.
Q. Well, was anj^body else present?
A. I can't say.
Q. What time in 1899 was it?
A. I couldn't designate the day.
Q. Was it summer or winter?
A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. Who started the conversation?
A. I did.
Q. What did you ask her?
A. I heard there was a lawsuit going on, and Mr.
Ripinski bought her ground and I wanted to know
if she would go out and show me where it was and
she said she would and she went out and showed me.
Q. Did she go out on this land with you and
show you?
A. Yes, sir, what she sold to Ripinski, and also
what she sold to Mrs. Dalton.
Q. Who did you meet on the way down to view
this land with Mrs. Dickinson?
A. I couldn't say; it wasn't yesterday; that's
pretty near eight or nine years ago.
Q. Who saw you going down there, if anyone
did? A. And that I don't know.
Q. AVhen did you first state that to anyone, that
Mrs. Dickinson had this conversation with you?
A. In 1899.
Q. I say, when did you first tell that to anyone?
A. I didn't told anybody.
224 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Never have told anybody about that conver-
sation^ A. No, sir.
Q. This is the first time you have ever mentioned
it? A. Tliat is for my own knowledge.
Q. From that time to this time you never have
told a single soul about that conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson?
A. I didn't have no opportunity to say anything
of this kind.
Q. You have told Mr. Lyons about it, haven't
you? A. I don't think it.
Q. Never did?
A. I believe I did speak to him.
Q. When was that?
A. I believe I mentioned it last night.
Q. So you have been occupying this land all this
time, and knew Sol EiiDinski claimed it and now
claims it by deed from this Indian woman Mrs. Dick-
inson, and you had a conversation with this Indian
woman in which she pointed out to you the bound-
aries of that tract, and you are the ringleader in this
townsite contest aren't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You're the one going around among these
plaintiffs and getting money to fight this suit, aren't
you?
Objected to as not cross-examination, incompe-
tent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Not particularly.
Q. And yet, sir, during all of that time you never
mentioned to anyone about you having this conver-
G. W. HincJiman et al. 225
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
sation that you have related with Mrs. Dickinson up
until last night — is that true, sir?
A. I didn't have no occasion to speak to anyone
about it.
Q. That's the only reason you never spoke about
it — because you didn't have the opportunity?
A. I knew of course about —
Q. And that's the best answer you can give to
that question?
A. I don't know anything else to answer, that's
the way it is.
Q. Mr. Weitzman, don't you know, sir, that you
never had any such a conversation with this Indian
woman Mrs. Dickinson? A. I swear I did.
Q. This woman is dead now, isn't she?
A. She is.
Q. You remember that lawsuit that Sol Ripinski
had with these alleged jumpers some time ago, don't
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Weren't you a witness in that suit?
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you had any conversation about this mat-
ter with Mrs. Dickinson up to that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you never told anyone about it then, did
you?
A. I was to be called as a witness in the case but
I was in Atlin at the time it was tried.
Q. You didn't tell the lawyer for the jumpers
about the conversation you had with Mrs. Dickin-
son at that time?
226 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. "Weitzman.)
A. I wasn't interviewed by any lawyers.
Q. When did it first occur to you to mention this
conversation you had with Mrs. Dickinson — you say
you told it for the first time last night, when did it
first occur to you you were going to testify to that
effect <?
A. It never occurred to me until I was ques-
tioned.
Q. Never occurred to you until Mr. L3^ons ques-
tioned you?
A. I tell you the truth, I thought we were fight-
ing this homestead case and how did I know what
was coming up?
A. I'm talking about this conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson — you say it never occurred to you up to
the time you are testifying to-night that you would
be called on to testify about that conversation you
had with Mrs. Dickinson! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told Mr. Lyons about it last night?
A. Yes, sir, when he questioned me.
Q. And then you learned at that time you would
probably come on the stand and have to testify to
that conversation?
A. I do; I testify to the truth, sir, and swear to it.
Q. I haven't said you were not testifying to the
truth, and I haven't intimated that you are not — I
am simply asking you some questions about it, Mr.
Weitzman; don't you know now, Mr. Weitzman, that
Mrs. Dickinson had conveyed to Sol. Ripinski all the
land between the Mission on the south and Blind
Isaac's house on the north? A. I do not.
G. W. HincJiman et at. 227
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. You didn't know that? A. No.
Q. You never heard that, did yo-jf
A. I knew he claimed some ground, but I didn't
know the boundaries — never seen any plat nor
nothing.
Q. If you had known that she had conveyed all
the land between the Mission on the south and Blind
Isaac's on the north, you wouldn't have tried to take
up this land at all, would you'?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not proper cross-examination.
A. I would dare to take it after she designated
to me the boundaries where she sold it.
Q. Notwithstanding that, if she had given a deed
in which she purported to convey to Sol. Eipinski
all the land between the Mission on the south and
Blind Isaac's house on the north, yet because she
told you how this deed was made and showed you
that she only owned so much, jou would still go
ahead and jump this land, would you — take up this
land, would you'?
A. Well, if I would be allowed to ask a question
I can put a little light on it. You can go to work
to-day and buy from any of those Indians for ten
dollars all the land from Haines clear to Chilkat if
you want to.
Q. Never mind, Mr. Weitzman; we don't want
any lecture from you on native characteristics —
A. — and he will sell you a whole mountain if
you want it.
Q. I didn't ask you for any lecture; now, sir — I
228 Solomon Ripinsktj vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
know you didn't buy from an Indian, just answer
my question: Would you have still gone ahead and
bought this land, knowing of the existence of such
a deed?
A. I believe I answered that question before —
after she showed me the boundaries; yes, I would.
Q. Notwithstanding the fact she had given a deed
to Sol. Ripinski for more than she showed you, you
mean to solemnly assert, sir, that you would have
gone ahead and bought a lawsuit and got into trou-
ble, you would still go ahead and build your house
on this land, knowing of the existence of such a deed
from Mrs. Dickinson to Sol. Ripinski? You mean
to say that here and now, do you?
A. I mean to say, Mr. Jennings, I know the In-
dian—
Q. Answer my question; would you?
A. What I answer before I answer you now —
from my experience with the Indians —
Q. Answer my question, Mr. Weitzman — answer
that question, sir? A. Yes, I would.
Q. Wouldn't that state of facts have lead you
into the belief that you might get into trouble?
A. There is no trouble whatever; the Indian will
claim he occupies so much and a man can go to him
and offer him a little piece of money and he will
claim the whole mountain.
Q. Now, sir, you pay attention to what I ask you,
and then answer — wouldn't the fact that Mrs. Dick-
inson conveyed that property to Sol. Ripinski lead
you to believe that Sol. Ripinski had some title to it?
G. W. HincJiman et al. 229
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. I don't know anything about that — ^1 don't
know.
Q. You don't know whether it would or not?
A. No, sir — what property she sold to him out-
side—
Q. Well, all the land between the Mission on tlie
south and Blind Isaacs on the north, sixteen acres —
If you had known she sold that —
A. Not after I learned the boundaries from her;
no, sir.
Q. Wouldn't that show you that Sol. Ripinski
claimed the land, no matter what Mrs. Dickinson
said about it? A. Yes.
Q. Why should you believe any more what Mrs.
Dickinson told you than what she said in her deed?
A. The reason is I would believe Mrs. Dickinson
what she showed me and whether I would believe
her statement in writing is different because an In-
dian don't know what is stated in a paper —
Q. Never mind about that, Mr. Weitzman — I
would believe what that old woman said as quickly
as I would believe you —
By Mr. LYONS. — I object to counsel's manner of
cross-examining this witness as unfair and insult-
ing, and I shall instruct the witness not to answer
such insinuations unless counsel confines himself to
proper examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I will leave it to the record
■ whether I have been fair or not, Mr. Lyons. So
that, Mr. Weitzman, at the time you acquired Lots
12 and 13 in Block No. 1 and at the time you acquired
230 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Lots 4 and 5 in Block No. 2, you knew that Sol. Rip-
inski laid some kind of a claim to that land, didn't
you? A. No.
Q. Now, sir, are you honest in that answer?
A. Honest?
Q. Do you swear, sir, that at that time you didn't
know Sol. Ripinski claimed that land?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you look at the records to find out?
A. I did not.
Q. When you buy land don't you generally in-
vestigate the title to find out something about it?
A. I do.
Q. Why didn't you do that in this case?
A. Well, you might say I did as —
Q. Did you investigate the records at all?
A. Yes, I did —
Q. Whereabouts did you investigate any rec-
ords?
A. I investigated it when I bought it these lots
in 1901 — when I bought these two lots from the orig-
inal locators which was on the plat which I saw.
Q. What plat was that?
A. Of the town of Haines.
Q. Was that recorded at the time, 1901?
A. It was recorded if I am not mistaken in 1898.
Q. That's where you got .your description, went
to Dyea to get that, did you?
A. I didn't go up for it; there was a general un-
derstanding in the town at the time this jolat was
made by Fogelstrom and Mr. Lane collected from
G. W. Hinchman et al. 231
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
every man in the place and sent it up to Mr. Smith
at Dyea to have it recorded; now I mean the place
where you see Mr. Cronin's name, the locator of 12
and 13 in Block 1, he had a hotel there and I bought
from him —
Q. Simply because you saw his name on that
plat? A. Yes.
Q. Now, you swear to that, do you?
A. I do.
Q. And this plat that's been introduced here,
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2, is a copy of that plat that
you just swore to — is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you show me Cronin's name on that plat?
A. His name doesn't appear here because he
didn't hire — my name appears there because I paid
Mr. Ruud—
Q. Mr. Weitzman, you just swore that this plat
is a copy of the Fogelstrom plat, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you just swore that you bought those
lots because you saw Cronin's name on that plat,
didn't you? A. Well, that is—
Q. Didn't you swear to that?
A. I believe so; yes, sir.
Q. And that's the only reason you gave for your
title? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because you saw his name on that plat made
by Fogelstrom, on whose authority you don't know?
A. I do.
Q. Whose authority was that made under?
232 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. The people of Haines.
Q. AVho — mention some of them*?
A. Mr. Fay, W. W. Warne, Mr. Cronin, and
Lane, Campbell, Ed. Adams, and a whole lot of
others, I can't recollect their names; the community
had that town platted.
Q. You simply mean that those few men got to-
gether and hired a man by the name of Fogelstrom
to draw a plat and jout on that plat the lots with the
the names of the claimants, and they called that the
towm of Haines — isn't that the case?
A. I understood that those names —
Q. Well, isn't that true, and isn't that what you
mean by the people of Haines?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Well, explain it please, if that isn't what you
mean?
A. I understood the community taking up the
townsite have the right to go to work and have a
surveyor survey it and plat it, and that's what was
done.
Q. Mr. John U. Smith at Dyea was the man
where everything was recorded those days, wasn't
he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was the regular recorder at Dyea?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you wanted to buy a piece of property, and
didn't know who was the owner, you would go and
look at the records and find out who owned the land?
A. I would go to the recorder's, provided I knew
G. W. Hinchman et al. 233
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
the piece of property lias been turned over several
times, yes.
Q. All right. Now, how did you know that Mr.
Cronin hadn't conveyed those lots to somebody else
before you bought?
A. Well, then, he would make liable himself to
fraud, I suppose.
Q. You simpl}^ took his word that he still owned
it then*? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And took the fact that his name appeared on
the plat? A. Yes, sir; correct.
Q. And you made no further investigation at all?
A. No.
Q. If you had been in doubt of his word, 3^ou
would have gone to the records at Dyea?
A. Yes, sir; sure.
Q. If you had gone to those records and found
out that Sol. Ripinski owned that land, what then?
Objected to as not proper cross-examination, irrel-
evant and immaterial.
A. Naturally, I wouldn't buy it, that's all.
Q. And you wouldn't have put on those improve-
ments under those circumstances, either?
A. If I had known anyone else had a previous
right to me, no, I wouldn't.
Q. Now, you say in December, 1898, you advised
Sol. Ripinski 's brother that people might come down
there and jump his property, didn't you?
A. That was a very common conversation, on ac-
count of the strike of Porcupine, whole lot of people
poured in.
234 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. I didn't ask you whether it was a common con-
versation or otherwise — you testified that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Weitzman, how much did you say
your improvements on those lots have cost you?
A. On which land?
Q. This tract of land in dispute?
A. Only that that's in dispute.
Q. Yes, sir; on the tract of land in dispute.
A. Only seven or eight thousand dollars.
Q. On this survey No. 573, the tract of land in
dispute that is? I don't think you mean that — the
main part of your house is on the Dalton acre, isn't
it? A. Yes.
Q. How much have the improvements you have
put on Survey No. 573, how much does that stand
you at this time, excluding the house that's on the
Dalton acre ?
A. Well, the house on the Dalton acre comes over
back, the back end of it; that cost me a thousand
dollars, this is the U. S. Jail here.
Q. And in addition to that, your little business
there, and that depends a good deal on who wins this
law suit, doesn't it Mr. Weitzman?
A. I don't understand you.
Q. I say the prosperity of your business depends
a good deal on the result of this law suit, doesn 't it ?
A. I don't think that has got anything to do
with my business.
Q. Don't think it has anything to do with it?
G. W. Hinchman et at. 235
(Testimonj^ of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. I'm sure of it; I know the amount of money
I have got expended, I'm pretty sure of that.
Q. And 5^ou're sure of your business there?
A. Oh, I don't know that it will injure my busi-
ness to any extent.
Q. And yet you're the man, the main man that
has been around getting up subscriptions and hiring
lawyers to fight the claim of the people of Haines
against Sol. Eipinski?
A. I beg your pardon ; I was one appointed as a
committee to go around and see, and there were two
men also appointed.
Q. You're the only one left of that committee?
A. No.
Q. Who else is on that committee?
A. Mr. Fay is on that conunittee, and Mr.
Martin.
Q. Well, lately you have taken quite an active
interest in the matter, haven't you?
A. Not as much as anybody else.
Q. Not as much as anyone else?
A. Well, an equal share.
Q. Well, then, not any more than anyone else ?
A. Equal share; yes, sir.
Q. Did you take up any lots there in July, 1903 ?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q, Whereabouts ?
A. Right here, the back part of my lot.
Q. The back part of which lot?
A. The lot where my store is.
236 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Well, the back part of what lot on that ex-
hibit No. 1? A. Lot 3 in Block No. 1.
Q. Was it all of that part of Lot No. 3 in Block
No. 1 north of that oblique line that comes through
about the center of this, here ? A. No.
Q. How much of that?
A. I think about 60 feet; something like that.
Q. It includes these buildings here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You took up that property, and then built
those three buildings there after July, 1903?
A. This building here was there before.
Q. Who claimed that building at that time?
A. I did.
Q. I asked you if in July, 1903, you took up any
other lots?
A. I took up the same lot by locating the bound-
aries so as to have it on record; I occupied it since
1899 and I went to work and put that location notice
on record.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Sol.
Ripinski about that time?
A. I never did. He asked me once if I made
some locations and he put a man by the name of
Peterson to come after me to see I didn't get on his
ground.
Q. Didn't you take up any lots there except the
back part of Lot No. 3 ?
A. No, sir, nothing at all.
Q. Didn't you, sir, jump — when was it you took
up lots 12 and 13 for Mrs. Weitzman ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 237
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. I bought that in 1901 from Mr. Cronin, the
original locator of the ground.
Q. AVho put up the buildings on Lot No. 12 ?
A. I did.
Q. When? A. In 1901.
Q, Did you put them both up?
A. Yes, sir, two buildings.
Q. Who put the improvements on Lot No. 13?
A. This was in the front there — no, it was in the
back and the man sold it, he is running a restaurant.
Q. Did you not have a conversation with Sol.
Ripinski about July, 1903, in which Mr. Eipinski
asked you in the presence of your wife why you
jumped his lots there? Back of Weitzman 's house,
and you answer him that you thought if you didn't
jump them somebody else would?
A. That is not true.
Q. You never had any such conversation?
A. No, sir.
Q. You're positive of that, are you?
A. Positive, sir.
Q. Mr. Weitzman, did you not have a conversa-
tion till Sol. Ripinski on or about July, 1903, in the
town of Haines, on the main street there, what is
called Main Street in what is called the town of
Haines, at which conversation your wife was
present, in which Mr. Ripinski asked you why you
jumped those lots back of your house, and you an-
swered him that if you hadn't jumped them some-
body else would?
A. I positively never had any such conversation.
238 Solomon RipinsJiy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Xothing like that? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have any conversation with Mr.
Ripinski at all at about that time?
A. Xot that I know of.
Q. Well, if you had had such a conversation, you
would have known it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you swear positively you never did ?
A. Positively.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYOXS. — ]\Ir. "Weitzman, do you know
where the original map of which Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2 is a copy now is ? A. I do.
Q. I mean do you know where the original is
now ? A. It was left with Mr. Smith in Dyea.
Q. AVhen was the last time you saw it?
A. I never did see the original.
Q. When was it left with Mr. Smith, the
recorder at Dyea? A. In 1898.
Q. What became of those records, if you know?
A. I don't know. We only knew that in 1902
a Government agent came from Washington to in-
vestigate this matter, and he went to Dyea and he
found Mr. Smith's house and he broke into it and
found th€ records and found the town plat of
Haines.
Counsel for the defendant moves to strike the
answer as hearsay.
Plaintiffs do not resist.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Weitzman, you say
you never saw the original of that plat ?
G. W. Hinchman et dl. 239
(Testimony of J. Gr. Morrison.)
A. No, just a copy of the original.
Q. Then you never saw the original of this Ex-
hibit No. 2 of the plaintiff in your life, did you ?
A. No, sir.
[Testimony of J. G. Morrison, for the Plaintiffs (Re-
called) .]
J. G. MORRISON, recalled by plaintiffs, testified
on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Morrison, are you ac-
quainted with one Bill Dickinson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is the son of Sarah Dickinson, formerly
of Haines, is he ?
A. Well, I knew Bill Dickinson; I don't know
whose son he was; he was always known around
there as Mrs. Sarah Dickinson's son.
Q. Mrs. Dickinson is the native woman who it is
claimed made some sale to the defendant of prop-
erty in Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known Billy Dickinson?
A. I got acquainted with him about the time I
went there; about 1899 or 1900.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Billy
Dickinson with reference to how much property his
mother owned there at Haines? A. I did.
Q. When and where did you have that conversa-
tion ?
A. At my own house there in Haines; I don't
know whether we was inside out outside — I know it
was there we talked it over.
240 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of J. G. Morrison.)
Q. When was that, Mr. Morrison?
A. That would be 1901 or 1902.
Q. Now, state the subject of that conversation.
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, hear-
say, not being binding on the defendant and not hav-
ing been shown to have occurred before the deed
from Mrs. Dickinson, his mother, or from either of
them, or prior to any conveyance under which Sol.
Eipinski claims.
A. Why, I asked Billy one day, "Billy," I says,
''how much land did your mother sell to Sol.
Ripinski?" And his answer was that she sold the
store and the garden, and that was all she ever
claimed.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Where did that conversa-
tion occur? A. Right at my own place there.
Q. When was it ?
A. It would be about 1901 or 1902 — it was as
early as that, 1902, perhaps.
Q. Who was present?
A. I don't remember; don't think there was any-
body heard us.
Q. Nobody heard you at all?
A. I don't really think there was, that I know of.
Q. How did you come to have such a conversa-
Mon?
A. Why, Billy used to hang around the house a
lot and I paid him for his work, and it was after
this Ripinski lawsuit and about the time he was
sold out there.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 241
(Testimony of J. G. Morrison.)
Q. Mr. Morrison, don't you know that Billy
Dickinson was a witness for Sol. Ripinski at that
lawsuit? A. I do not.
Q. Don't you know that he swore in that case
that his mother claimed all the land between the
Mission and Blind Isaac's? A. I do not.
Q. Don't you know as a matter of fact that Billy
Dickinson himself made a deed to Sol. Ripinski ac-
knowledged on the 21st day of December, 1897, by
which he conveyed to Ripinski both buildings and
fifteen acres of land adjoining the Presbyterian
Mission grounds situate at Haines Mission, Alaska,
except one acre of ground claimed by J. Dalton?
Objiected to as incompetent, irrelevant and im-
material, and not proper cross-examination.
A. No, sir.
Q. And you're willing to swear now that Billy
Dickinson told you in 1901 or 1902, in your store in
Haines, with nobody present but yourself and Billy,
that his mother never claimed but this small tract
where the store and the garden and warehouse is?
A. That's the words he told me — certainly told me
that.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Well, that's all, sir.
[Testimony of H. Fay, for the Plaintiffs (Re-
called) .]
H. FAY, recalled by the plaintiffs, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Do you know this man named
Billy Dickinson? A. Yes, sir.
242 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. How long have you known Mm?
A. Since 1897.
Q. Did you know his mother, Mrs. Sarah Dick-
inson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long did you know her?
A. I knew her since 1897 also.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
Billy Dickinson with respect to the amount of land
his mother claimed at Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When and where did you have that conversa-
tion?
A. On the 14th day of December, 1897, at
Haines.
Q. What did Billy Dickinson tell you then?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial, incom-
petent, and a repetition, the witness having already
testified on the subject.
By Mr. DYOiNS.— I wasn't sure that Mr. Fay had
testified as to that and I merely ask him now to make
certain.
A. Billy Dickinson pointed out to me the ground
his mother claimed, — this parcel marked "Ripinski
Homestead."
Q. On Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1?
A. Yes, sir, which included the store building
and the warehouse, and it came up approximately
to within about, well, I should judge 50 or 100 feet
of the east line of the town plat there.
Q. Of Block No. 1?
A. Yes, sir. Block No. 1 ; there was a little ditch
there at that time, and he said it ran just about to
G. W. Hinchman et al. 243
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
there — and that was all his mother claimed at the
time.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— When was that conversa-
tion, Mr. Fay ?
A. When we original locators went to locate that
ground.
Q. What date — when was it — the date?
A. The 14th day of December, 1897.
Q. Whereabouts did that conversation occur?
A. On the ground there.
Q. Who was present?
A. There was N. Spooner, his name was, Al.
James, John Penglase, McLaughlin, Charles Ny-
strom, W. W. Warne and myself.
Q. That's all, is it?
A. There were others, I believe, but I can't recall
their names just at present.
Q. Warne is gone — ^he isn't around here — he's
not missionary down there any more?
A. No, sir.
Q. When was the last time you ever saw him?
A. I haven't seen him since the time he left
Haines.
Q. When was that?
A. Oh, I should judge five or six years ago.
Q. Who was Nystrom?
A. He was a fisherman that lived at Pyramid
Harbor.
Q. Where is he ? A. He is dead, I believe.
Q. Who was McLaughlin?
244 Solomon Ripinsktj vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. He was a man that came up from Juneau.
Q. And where is he? A. I don't know.
Q. When did you see him last?
A. Well, I don 't know when I did see him last.
Q. Give us your best estimate?
A. Well, I haven't seen him for many years that
I know of.
Q. He is out of the country as far as you know?
A. As far as I know, yes, sir.
Q. Have you seen him around Haines or any-
where else ?
A. Don't think I would know him if I did see
him even.
Q. And Spooner is out of the country?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Al. James, what has become of him?
A. I don't know.
Q. He is out of the country?
A. I think he is ; yes, sir.
Q. John Penglase is the only man in the country,
now, isn't he, out of that big crowd you had there?
A. He is down at Douglas, I believe ; yes.
Q. Did he hear Billy Dickinson say this?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked to him about this matter
since that?
A. Yes, we have had several lawsuits in regard
to practically this same strip of ground, or part of
it ; it has been in court at different times, you know,
and during that time, why Penglase was a witness
G. W. Hinchman et al. 245
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
on one case that I know of, and wlietlier he was in
the others I don't remember.
Q. Did he swear at that trial that he heard this
conversation with Billy Dickinson?
"A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you? A. Yes, sir; I believe I did.
Q. That's the best answer you can give?
A. No, sir, I know I did.
Q. At which trial was that?
A. Well, it was the trial of —
Q. Whereabouts was that trial held?
A. In Malcolm's Court, at Juneau.
Q. And you swore on that occasion that he. Bill}'
Dickinson pointed out to you what his mother
claimed at Haines?
A. I did, simply because I know we took Billy
Dickinson with us to show us the ground that was
claimed there.
Q. I ask you if that is the fact, that you swore
to it? A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And you swear to it, now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Fay, you knew then at that time, that this
Indian woman did claim some land there, and you
wanted to find out how much she claimed, was that
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know there was a claim of some kind
there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn't you go to the records and find out
what it was ?
A. Well, I didn't know at the time there was
246 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon)^ of H. Fay.)
any records of land at Haines — we didn't know of
any.
Q. Why didn't you go to Mrs. Dickinson to find
out?
A. I don't know whether she was there or not;
we naturally thought her son would have knowledge
of the ground she claimed —
Q. And you were just going to take her land on
what Bill}^ Dickinson claimed, without inquiring
from her what she claimed at all? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, you didn't inquire from her what she
claimed? A. No, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— How old was Billy Dickinson
at that time?
A. I should judge he was about thirty years old
— should judge that much, or more.
Q. He w^as a native?
• A. Yes, sir, half-breed.
Q. More than ordinarily intelligent was he not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does he speak fairly good English and did he
at that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which was the more intelligent, he or his
mother — which one spoke the better English at that
time?
A. He did; his mother couldn't talk very wel]
about it because when we asked her about the
ground later on why she could talk, — that is, you
could understand her, but she couldn't explain
things like he did.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 247
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Do you know whether there was any regular
recording place for Haines at that time"?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know as a matter of fact whether
there was any authority for recording instruments
at Dyea at that time? A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't know anything about it?
A. No, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mrs. Dickinson wasn't an
ordinary native woman, was she — she was a woman
of superior intelligence and education, wasn't she?
A. No, she was not.
Q. Didn't she have a good English education at
Victoria? A. I don't know.
Q. She spoke good English, didn't she?
A. No, sir.
Q. She was a witness on the trial before Judge
Malcolm, and also at Skagway, was she not?
A. I think she was.
Q. And she gave her testimony on those occa-
sions without the aid of an interpreter, didn't she?
A. I don't remember as to that.
Q. Now, are you honest in that claim, sir, that
you don't know that she spoke good English, and
did on these occasions without the intervention of
an interpreter?
A. I say I don't remember but she did.
Q. Did you ever talk to her yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she understand everything you said?
248 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimouy of H. Fay.)
A. She did.
Q. And slie was a well educated Indian woman?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Will you swear that she wasn't better edu-
cated than Billy Dickinson himself?
A. Yes, sir, she was a yery ignorant woman as
far as that's concerned, Mr. Jennings.
Q. Did you eyer see her write her name?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you know she could write?
A. No, sir.
Q. You knew she could talk pretty fair English?
A. Yes, sir, I had a conyersation with her in re-
gard to that land down there a long time after that
and she said —
Q. Well, neyer mind about that.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Billy Dickinson is a half-breed,
isn't he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. His father was a white man?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say you had a conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson with reference to the land she owned, that
parcel? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you haye that conyersation with
her?
A. When I learned that Ripinski claimed he had
bought fifteen acres from her.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 249
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Did she describe to you at that time ^Yhat land
she did claim'?
Objected to as not binding on Mr. Ripinski the
defendant, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what parcel of land she described to
you?
A. She showed me the ground that she sold to
Ripinski; she says, "I sold Ripinski this ground,"
pointing to the house and the store and warehouse
and the little garden, and she says, "That's all I
had," and she says when I asked her, that she didn't
know what fifteen acres was — those are the words
she used to me.
Q. When did you have that conversation with
Mrs. Dickinson?
A. Well, it was soon after I learned that Ripinski
laid claim to that ground.
Q. Can't you give approximately the date?
A. I couldn't tell to swear to it, within a year.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Now, Mr. Fay, you were on
the witness-stand a little while ago to-night, weren't
you?
A. I believe I was.
Q. And you were on the witness-stand this af-
ternoon?
A. Yes, sir, and was on this morning too.
Q. And 3^ou never testified to the conversation
you are now testifying abont?
A. I don't believe I was asked the question.
250 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. And you wasn't asked it to-night — you merely
volunteered it to-night, didn't you, that you had this
conversation — before Mr. Lyons asked you any ques-
tions about it? A. Yes, sir, yes, sir.
Q. All right; now, you heard Mr. Weitzman tes-
tify that Mrs. Dickinson had told him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you heard my cross-examination of Mr.
Weitzman? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And now you have been recalled, and towards
the end of your examination you have volunteered
this statement about Mrs. Dickinson having told
that — didn't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't you ever tell Mr. Lyons before to-night
that you had that conversation with Mrs. Dickin-
son? A. I don't believe I did.
Q. Did you ever tell anybody else?
A. I don't know that I did.
Q. And Mr. Lyons didn't know anything about
this conversation you had with Mrs. Dickinson until
you just let it out here a few minutes ago?
A. I don't know that I told him.
Q. Don't you know that you didn't?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Who was present at this conversation be-
tween Mrs. Dickinson and yourself?
A. Myself and Mrs. Dickinson.
Q. Nobody else at all? A. No, sir.
Q. And Mrs. Dickinson is dead?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 251
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. And you're interested in this case to tlie tune
of about five or ten thousand dollars'?
A. Approximately about five thousand dollars.
Q. Where did this conversation take place *?
A. Right at this ground that Mrs. Dickinson
claimed; the store was right about here (indicating
on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1), just along this line,
along the Main Street, when I asked her and she
pointed over there and showed me where it w^as.
Q. How did you come to ask her that question?
A. Well, I asked Billy — we original locators took
Bill}^ over to find out where or what ground his
mother claimed, and he show^ed us the ground his
mother claimed. Well, after I found out or learned
that Ripinski claimed the ground above that, then
I asked his mother what she sold to him.
Q. You thought that was quite an important
thing to know just what she claimed, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you wanted to fortify yourself by finding
out what she said about it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn't you testify to that on your other
examination in this case, if you thought it was such
an important matter in this controversy?
A. I didn't think anything about it.
Q. Why didn't you tell Mr. Lyons about it be-
fore this time? A. I didn't think of it.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Fay?
A. About forty years old.
Q. You are a business man, I take it?
A. Yes, sir.
252 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Have had lawsuits of your own I suppose"?
A. Yes, sir, several of tliem.
[Testimony of S. J. Weitzman, for the Plaintiffs
(Recalled).]
S. J. WEITZMAN, being recalled by plaintiffs,
testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— How long, Mr. Weitzman, did
you pay rent to Sol. Ripinski for Lot No. 3 in Block
1 at Haines?
A. I believe it was for one or two months.
Q. State the circumstances under which you paid
rent to him?
Objected to as repetition.
A. When I put up my building there and started
in business, I learned that it has been sold an acre
of ground by an Indian woman to Mr. Ripinski and
that I am on the ground — on this acre. So I went to
Mr. Ripinski and asked him whether he will sell me
this and he says no. I says, "Will you lease it to
me ? " and he says ' ' Yes. " Sol made the bargain for
five dollars a month and paid him the first five dol-
lars I remember of; whether I paid him the next
month I do not remember.
Q. That was when you had already built on the
ground, before you learned this acre had been sold?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you went to consult with him about
purchasing or renting from him ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you continue to pay that?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 253
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. I continued to pay that rent until I was called
on by Mr. Dalton and afterwards by Mrs. Dalton
and told that was their ground, that this acre has
been bought by Mrs. Dalton so then with the con-
sent of Mr. Ripinski — Mr. Ripinski then denied his
right to this ground I leased from him and turned
over the claim to Mrs. Dalton, and then I bought it
from Mrs. Dalton and paid her for it.
Q. Did you pay Ripinski any more rent after
that?
A. No, he turned me back the rent I have paid
in, at least Mrs. Dalton collected from him and I paid
the balance of the purchase.
Q. The rent you had already paid was returned
by Ripinski after you made the deal with Mrs. Dal-
ton? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Ripinski ever try to collect rent from you
for Siny other lot you owned there?
A. No, sir, none whatever.
Q. The other lots you owned weren't located
near the vicinity of the Dalton acre?
A. I never located any — I bought.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You wouldn't have paid
him any rent if he had asked you?
A. How is that?
Q. I say you wouldn't have paid him any rent
if he had asked you to — Ripinski?
A. For which lots ?
Q. Outside of this lot on the Dalton acre?
254 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
A. Well, if be claimed it I miglit have paid him,
but I bought it from a man that gave me a quitclaim
deed for it.
Q. Would you have paid him in 1901 and 1902 if
he had asked jou^.
A. In that year I know he lost it.
Q. I suppose if he had needed it and demanded
it you would have paid him?
A. Yes, if he demanded it and gave me title.
Q. Well, you say in 1901 and 1902 you knew he
didn't have an}^ right to that land? A. Yes.
Q. If he had demanded rent, you would have paid
him even though you know he didn't have any title
to it, wouldn't you?
A. I certainly would not.
Q. It wouldn't have done him any good to de-
mand it after you bought from Oronin in 1901?
A. Yes; I didn't believe the land I bought from
Cronin was on the Ripinski claim.
Q. Mr. Weitzman, when it was ascertained the
land you were on, that acre there, when it was as-
certained you were on the Dalton acre Sol. Ripinski
paid you back your rent money, didn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He didn't lay any claim to the Dalton acre?
A. It was between him and Mrs. Dalton; I didn't
know anything about that trouble.
Q. Who told you — you say you learned he bought
an acre from an Indian woman — who told you that?
A. I heard the rumor that way.
Q. Just rumor? A. That's all.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 255
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Can you tell now who told you that?
A. If I'm not mistaken, his brother also told me.
Q. He is away now too, isn't he?
A. He isn't here.
Q. He's down in Seattle —
A. And he also advised me —
Q. Well, who else told you now?
A. About what?
Q. That Sol. had bought an acre from an Indian
woman? A. The rumor was there at the time.
Q. You mentioned his brother in Seattle, now
did anybody else tell you?
A. I say I'm not positive ; I think his brother also
told me about it.
Q. Well, can you give the name of anybody else
that told you?
A. I believe — well, I couldn't call names at that
time, I have a bad memory on names.
Q. The only person that you can name that you
think told you that Sol. Ripinski had bought an acre
from an Indian woman is now down in Seattle, like
all the rest of your important witnesses — most of
them ?
A. I don't know where he is, whether he's in
Seattle, Portland, or any place else.
Q. I mean all the rest of your witnesses to these
conversations — well — that 's all.
Whereupon an adjournment was taken until Mon-
day, July 8th, at 9 A. M.
And be it further remembered, that on Monday,
July the 8th, 1907, at 9 o 'clock A. M., this matter was
256 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
again called for liearino' pursuant to adjournment,
there being present tlie same as of Saturday; and
thereupon the following proceedings were had, to wit :
[Testimony of W. B, Stout, for tlie Plaintiffs.]
W. B. STOUT, a witness called to further maintain
the issues on behalf of the plaintiffs, being thereto
first duly sworn, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — State ,your name, residence, and-
occupation.
A. W. B. Stout; residence, Haines; at present I
am postmaster down there.
Q. How long have you resided in Haines %
A. Since the spring of 1899.
Q. What official positions have you held during
your residence at Haines %
A. I have held the position of postmaster most all
of the time ; I also held the office of Commissioner for
three 3^ears.
Q. United States Commissioner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For the precinct of Haines ?
A. Yes, sir ; held office under Judge Brown.
Q. Have you lived in Haines continuously since
the spring of 1899 ? A. I have.
Q. Are you familiar with the village or town of
Haines? A. I think I am.
Q. Are you familiar with the tract of ground in
controversy in this action % A. I am.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 2bl
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. You liave been over tliat tract at different
times ? A. I have.
Q. Do you own any property within the disputed
tract? A. I do not.
A. I now call your attention to Exhibit No. 1 of
the plaintiffs.
A. I don't know, Mr. Lyons, whether I can see so
as to tell anything about this map or plat, I doubt it.
(Looking through reading-glass.) I can see the ex-
terior boundaries, the lines, but not the names — can't
see so as to read them.
Q. Well, by whom has this tract of land been oc-
cupied during all the time you have lived in Haines f
Objected to as — objection withdrawn.
A. Well, by Mr. Ripinski and various other per-
sons— not exclusively on this tract of course.
Q. Just confine yourself, Mr. Stout, to my inter-
rogatories— who has occupied the disputed tract I
A. Well, various persons.
Q. Has Mr. Ripinski occupied any portion of \t%
A. The disputed tract ?
Q. Yes.
A. I think not, except by purchase, and I don't
know whether he purchased it or not.
Q. How much of that has he purchased if any ?
A. That is the lot where the building stands of Mr.
W. H. Bigelow, he made a quitclaim deed to W. A.
Barnett.
Q. Which block is that in ?
A. In Block No. 1, facing on Main Street.
258 Solomon Ripinsky V8.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. You can see it on this plat marked "Sol. Rip-
inski," can you not, Mr. Stout *?
A. I expect it is — I can't see it.
Q. I think you can see that, it is large letters. I
believe you stated that no portion of the disputed tract
except Lot No. 5 in Block 1 has been occupied by Mr.
Ripinski since you went to Haines ?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Well, you have been there all the time ?
A. Yes, sir, all the time.
Q. And Haines is a small town*? A. Yes.
Q. How much, what part of the town of Haines
does he actually occupy 1
Objected to on the ground that the term "occupy"
which Mr. Lyons uses to this witness is of legal sig-
nificance, and there is no explanation of the witness as
to what he means by occupy ; it is not only a legal term,
but one which in the common vernacular may mean
many things.
A. He has resided and occupied — the two terms
seem to me to be somewhat synonymous — where he
now lives on the eastern portion of the tract desig-
nated on this plot —
Q. Designated as ' ' Ripinski Homestead, ' ' isn 't it *?
A. Yes, sir, as appeared the other night on the
tract when I examined it.
Q. Is all of the remainder of the disputed tract
occupied by different people in the town of Haines?
A. No, I think not.
Q. Then what portion is not ?
G. W. HincJiman et al. 259
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. Well, I think the north half of Block No. 6, and
perhaps some of the north half of Block 5 — perhaps
all of it, I don't know — I don't think there is anyone
on that — in fact I don't know just where the line is
there, but I don't think there is anyone on the north
half of Block 5.
Q. Well, is all of Block No. 1 occupied %
Objected to as leading. Q. withdrawn.
Q. I'll ask you if all of Block No. 1 is actually oc-
cupied by residents of the town of Haines %
A. Yes, I think it is.
Q. How about Block No. 2 ?
A. Well, I think Block No. 2 is too ; that is if you
mean actually possessed and occupied by the person
that claims to own it, I will have to answer no.
Q. Well, how is the land occupied — Judge, you are
the witness and I want you to state the facts about it %
A. Well, there is Eev. Mr. Warne, I think, claims
Lots 10, 11 and 12 in Block No. 2 and he is in North
Dakota somewhere ; however, he placed some founda-
tions for a building on those lots and had a good fence
around them several years ago.
Q. Well, then, as I understand you, all of Blocks
No. 1 and No. 2 are either occupied by the actual own-
ers of the ground or by their lessees or agents?
A. Yes.
Q. How about Block No. 3 ?
A. Well, that along Main Street is claimed and I
think has some improvements on, all of those lots ; but
the back part of it I don't think is — don't think there
260 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
is much improvement back there, although I think
different people claim it all.
Q. You know Mr. Hinchman, do you ?
A. Yes, sir, that is in Block No. 3 he is —
Q. Certainly —
A. Oh, well, then, yes — excuse me; Mr. Hinch-
man, Mr. Colgate, and Mr. H. J. Cougar all have lots
there.
Q. Then since reconsidering, what would 3"0u say
as to all of that block being occupied by different resi-
dents of the town of Haines ?
A. I think perhaps it is since I recall.
Q. What about Block No. 4?
A. Block No. 4 — I don't know whether there is
anyone on the back part of that or not.
Q. Do you know the one occupied b^^ Kate Kabler "?
A. Is that in No. 4 1
Q. Yes, sir.
A. That fronts on Main Street, don't it ?
Q. Yes, sir ; is that actually occupied by her or her
agent ?
A. Well, it is occupied by her in a way, she has a
little house on it, and it isn't fenced and, I guess, if
anyone is her agent I am ; she has other property there
in Haines not on the disputed tract, also.
Q. Well, have you exerted acts of ownership of
that lot for her ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever rented it for her ?
A. I did not; it was never in condition to rent.
Q. She has a small building on her property there ?
A. Yes, sir, small building.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 261
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. How about the other lots along Main Street in
Block No. 4, are you familiar with the Johnson house %
A. The Pete Johnson house, 3^es, sir; that was
originally claimed by a man by the name of Brown
when I went there.
Q. Are they actually occupied ?
A. I think they are ; yes, sir,
Q. Do you know by whom %
A. Mrs. Johnson.
Q. Are they fenced ?
A. Not fenced, but it has a good building on, and
I understand Pete Johnson's wife has lived there all
the time — she is an Indian woman.
Q. Now how about Block No. 4 ?
A. Lot No. 5 in Block No. 4 —
Q. No, you have described that lot — I mean Block
5?
A. In fact, I don't know just where those lines
run.
Q. I will call your attention to some of the names
designated on those lots on this Plaintitfs' Exhibit No.
1—M.E. Handy?
A. Yes, there is a little barn on that lot out there.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
A
Q
Ed. Fay?
Let's see ; I don't know what he has on his lot.
John Paddock?
Yes, he has a good house on the lot he claims.
That 's in Block No. 5, is it ? A. Yes, sir.
Falconer & Dryden ?
The}^ have a fence around that lot.
Mrs. Jesse Craig?
262 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. Yes, she lias a house and fence around hers.
I will state there is no division fence between hers and
Dry den & Baldwins.
Q. A. J. Dennerline'?
A. Yes, he has a board house on the lot he claims
out there.
Q. Then all of that tier of lots in Block No. 5 abut-
ting on Main Street is actually occupied %
A. I think they are.
Q. Were the.y occupied at the commencement of
this suit %
Objected to on the ground it is not shown the wit-
ness knows when it was commenced.
Q. This action was begun on July 2d, 1906 — were
all those lots occupied at that time ?
A. Yes, sir, I think they were.
Q. All the lots you have referred to on the disputed
tract as being occupied now, were occupied then %
A. I think so.
Q. By citizens of the town of Haines %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you familiar with the different streets in
the town of Haines on this disputed tract ?
A. Well, yes, somewhat; I know where Main
Street is, and Dalton Street on the north, and —
Q. What proportion of the town of Haines is in-
cluded within this disputed tract ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. The disputed tract lays almost, according to the
map as I seen it the other day, I could see better then
G. W. Hinchman et al. 263
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
— lays pretty near exclnsively in the first row of
Blocks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Q. Well, now, what percentage of the residential
and business portion of the town of Haines is included
within the tract — within the exterior boundaries of
the tract now claimed by Ripinski in this action %
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. The business and residential portion.
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I would say half of the business portion
of the town, and the residential portion on the dis-
puted tract — well, almost all of it — the greater portion
of it by a great deal — a great deal the greater portion
of it.
Q. What was the condition of the town of Haines
when you first went there ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
— I refer now to the physical condition of the land I
A. Well, it had not been cleared ; that is, there had
been some clearing done but it wasn't what you would
call cleared land at all — even what is now called Main
Street wasn't cleared at that time.
Q. What is the condition of the disputed tract now,
with reference to whether it is cleared or not %
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. All of Block 1 is cleared ; and all of Block No.
2 might be counted cleared too — think I would say
it is cleared. Block No. 3, I think that's pretty well
cleared up — in fact I know it is. Block No. 4 isn't so
well cleared, neither is Block 5 nor 6.
Q. How about the front tier of lots in Blocks 4
and 5?
264 Solomon Ripinsktj vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. The front lots in Blocks 4 and 5 are not entirely
cleared up, there has been some work done on them,
but I don't think you could say they are entirely
cleared. It would take quite a bit of work yet to clean
them up and bring them into proper shape.
Q. Are you able to estimate about the amount of
money that has been expended by the citizens of
Haines claiming adversely to Ripinski this tract —
A. I beg pardon ?
Q. I say, are you able to estimate approximately
what amount of money has been expended by the
citizens of the town of Haines claiming this tract ad-
versely to Sol. RiiDinski, in clearing this land and con-
structing their business houses and residences now on
that land ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Before answering that question, Mr. Lyons, I
would like to know whether you include in the ques-
tion the labor and time —
Q. Yes, sir, the entire expenditure represented
by the work done and improvements made and money
paid out?
A. Well, I think the estimate placed by the pre-
ceding witness, from sixty to seventy-five thousand
dollars, is a fair estimate.
Q. You say you don't own any property within
the disputed tract of land ? A. I do not.
Q. You are not claiming adversely to the defend-
ant? A. I do not.
G. W. Hinckman et al. 265
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Stout, what has S. J.
Weitzman got on Lot No. 5 in Block 2 %
A. Well, I can't tell, Mr. Jennings, by that map ?
Q. I don't want you to tell from this map ; I want
it from your own recollection ?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't know whether he has anything at all
on Lot 5 in Block 2 ?
A. Yes, I know he has — I think he has a half lot
there —
Q. I ask you what has he got on the lot ?
A. In the way of improvements ?
Q. Yes? A. He did have a house on it.
Q. What has he on it now %
A. I don 't think he has any house there now.
Q. When did he have a house there %
A. Several years ago he had a little log cabin —
perhaps it was lumber ; I 'm not sure as to that.
Q. You remember that he did have a house on
there ?
A. Yes, sir, little shack of some description.
Q. Has he moved it off the lot %
A. No, sir, he has torn it down and I think the
lumber is laying there on the lot now.
Q. What has Mr. William Holgate on Lot No. 12
in Block 3?
A. I don't know where he does live now, don't
know what lot his house is on.
Q. How do you know he claims Lot No. 12 in Block
3 then? A. I don't know it.
266 Solomon Riinnskij vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. How do you know George Hinchman claims
Lot 9 in Block 3?
A. Well, as I sa^y before, I don't know just where
those lines are, never paid particular attention to them
— I know he lives there is about all.
Q. He does live there, does he ?
A. Out there somewhere ; yes.
Q. What he occupies and what he claims you
don't know? A. No, I don't.
Q. And what Henry Rappolt occupies or claims
you don't know either, do you?
A. Well, Henry Rappolt hasn 't been here for sev-
eral years, but his agent Mr. Bjornstad has it now.
Q. That isn't what I mean —
A. Well, what do you mean by occupation then — if
you'll allow a question?
Q. Well, you tell me what you mean by it ?
A. Well, you wanted to know if he occupied it, do
you?
Q. I want to know what part of — or whether — or
what you know about Henry Rappolt occupying Lot
No. 6 in Block 3, what improvements he has got on it ?
A. Well, he had quite a large tent-house there.
Q. Tent-house ?
A. Yes, sir, and I think it is there yet — that is, all
except the canvas and I'm not sure but what that's
there too.
Q. Who lives in it ?
A. No one lives in it.
Q. Who was the last person that lived in it?
G. W. Hincliman et al. 267
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. Well, as near as I can recollect it was Tom Wil-
liams, he is an Indian ; it was rented to him by Eap-
polt 's a^'ent.
Q. You don't know whether Bjornstad is agent or
not, do you ? A. Except what he said ; no.
Q. Who said? A. Carl Bjornstad.
Q. He said he was agent for Eappolt ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is Eappolt? A. I don't know.
Q. Over in Atlin, isn 't he ? A. I don't know.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines, Mr. Stout ?
A. Ever since March, 1899.
Q. And you never saw Henry Eappolt in your life,
did you ?
A. I may have seen him, not to know him, I guess.
Q. Haines is a very small place %
A. Yes, comparatively ; but there was quite a good
many people there and I was a stranger to them all,
and they didn't know me.
Q. You are postmaster at Haines ?.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have been for many years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever delivered any mail to Henry
Eappolt or received any addressed to him at Haines ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and the witness should not answer the question
as U. S. Postmaster — he is not required to — however,
he can use his own judgment in the matter.
A. I don't know.
268 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. You don't know whether you have delivered or
have got letters there for Henry Eappolt ?
A. Not lately.
Q. Not for many years, have you ?
A. Quite a long time ago, if any.
Q. You don't know then that he hasn't been in
Haines for six or seven years ?
A. I don't know^; if he has been in Haines I
haven't seen him.
Q. All you know is, Carl Bjornstad says he is his
agent ? A. Yes.
Q. When was it this man Tim Williams lived on
this lot?
A. I think that was winter before last.
Q. What has become of Tom Williams now?
A. He is in the interior somewhere.
Q. How long did he live there ?
A. All winter.
Q. Who lives there now ? A. Nobody, now.
Q. Is there any house there now at all ?
A. The same kind of a house I tell you — kind of
a tent-house.
Q. How do you know Carl Bjornstad claims Lot
No. 10 in Block No. 2 ? A.I don 't know it.
Q. AVho does claim it ?
A. I don't know, unless it is Mr. Warne; I think
Mr. Warne claims that.
Q. How do you know^ that Warne claims Lot No.
12 in Block 2?
A. I know he did claim it when he was here.
Q. You're positive about that, are you ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 269
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just as positive about that as anything else you
have testified to in this case '^
A. Yes, sir, just as well as I see you standing
there ; that 's not very good of course, but it might have
been then.
Q. You say now that Mr. Warne claims Lot 12 in
Block 2? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if that's false, everything else you have
testified to in this case is false ?
Objected to as not proper cross-examination and
unfair in the extreme.
Q. Well, what has Carl Bjornstad got on Lot No.
9 in Block 3?
A. I don't know what he has on there.
Q. Don 't know whether he has anything, do you ?
A. I do not.
Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stout, I have been
reading those names out wrong to you — names that
are not marked on those lots there — what can you say
to that?
A. Well, I don't think you ought to do that, Mr.
Jennings, simply because I can't see; you hadn't
ought to do anything of the kind, if you mil allow me
to express my opinion about it.
Q. That's right; it might lead you to say some-
thing you can 't substantiate. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Stout, Carl Bjornstad claims Lot 12 in Block 2 and
Mr. AYarne's name isn't there at all. Now, as a mat-
ter of fact, sir, haven't you just been — is not the sum
and substance of your knowledge on this subject
270 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of W. B, Stout.)
simply this : That there are a lot of people living in
that neighborhood somewhere, but where they live,
what lot or block they own, or who owns it, you don't
know?
A. If that is marked Carl Bjornstad, Mr. Jen-
nings, I think it is marked wrong ; I have got that to
sa}^
Q. You think this map is marked wrong?
A. Yes, sir; Carl Bjornstad does claim the east
three lots, numbers 7, 8 and 9.
Q. Of what? A. Block No. 2.
Q. The three east lots, 7, 8 and 9?
A. And Mr. Warne did claim Lots 10, 11 and 12 in
Block 2.
Q. The three west lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Stout, as a matter of fact, the three
east lots of Block No. 2 are numbered 12, 13 and 14
and the three west lots of Block No. 2 are numbered
9, 10 and 11 ; what have you got to say about that?
A. I have got to say that it isn't marked then, the
way I have always understood it.
Q. The map 's wrong then ?
A. Well, the map's wrong or else I have under-
stood it wrong, one of the two. I am talking, Mr.
Jennings, in giving my answers with reference to
those lots, according to the plat made by Fogelstrom,
and he would commence at the southeast corner of a
block and run west, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and then he
would go back to the east side and run back on the
other side of the block, on the north side of the block,
G. W. Hinchman et al. 271
(Testimony of W. B- Stout.)
number 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 — I think you will find it
numbered that way on the Fogelstrom plat.
By Mr. LYONS. — That is the blocks are the same,
but on this map the lots are not divided the same ■?
A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Now, who is Ed. Fay?
A. He is a brother of Harry Fay.
Q. Who is James Pay f
A. He is a brother of Harry Fay.
Q. Then James, Ed. and Harry are three broth-
ers ? A. Said to be ; yes.
Q. What has Ed. Fay got on Lot No. 3 Block 5 '^
A. I don't know what his improvements are; I
know there are a quite a lot of little houses out there.
Q. AA^ho is Pete Johnson?
A. All I know about him is, I have seen him a time
or two when he happened to be at Haines ; he is a white
man and has an Indian woman. He at the present
time is in the Tanana country, but I'm told — I don't
know it personally — I'm told that his wife lives there
in that house at the present time.
Q. You don't know anything about it ?
A. And he has a son living there too, I believe.
Q. Where does he live ?
A. He lives in a little new house built on the same
property, I think.
Q. What lot and block?
A. I don't know what lot and block on that map.
Q. Does he live in one house or in three houses —
you know that?
272 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. Mrs. Johnson lives in a house as I said a while
ago originall^y occupied by a man by the name of
Brown; Brown and his family, and I don't know, but
I presume she lives there yet ; and Charley — ^he calls
himself Charley Edwards, but he is Pete Johnson's
son, lives in a little new house that he built there.
Q. But Pete Johnson is himself in the Tanana %
A. Yes, sir; somewhere.
Q. He owms Lot 2 in Block 4, right next to Katie
Kabler 's, between that and Harry Fay's %
A. I don't know the numbers.
Q. Are there any improvements on that lot?
A. I don't know that either — don't remember.
Q. Katie Kabler lives in Juneau, doesn't she?
A. She lives down there somewhere; either lives
in Juneau or Douglas, I believe.
Q. And you are her agent?
A. Yes, I presume I am —
Q. You presume so — what do you mean ?
A. Yes, I was her agent, and she has never relieved
me of the position, and I presume I am yet.
Q. What is the number of her lot and block?
A. She never gave that to me.
Q. Yet you're her agent ?
A. I know where her house out there, but as I
said before I never paid any particular attention to
the lines of the lots and blocks out in that part of the
town, and I don't know just where the lines are of
tlie lots and blocks.
Q. That's what I asked you a while ago ; you don't
know anything about what lot or block any of these
G, TF. IlincJwian et al. 273
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
people occupy, but simply that some people live up
there in the residential portion of Haines, and you
don't know what lot or block they claim — isn't that
true ? A. Well, I do in some of the blocks.
Q. Well, tell me a single one that you know %
A. I have done so.
Q. Who?
A. Carl B jornstad claims to own the east three lots
of Block No. 2 on the north, and that Mr. Wiarne
claims to own the three west lots on the north side of
Block 2.
Q. All right ; now tell me someone else?
A. Tim Vogel owns or claims Lot 1 in Block 2 ac-
cording to my understanding of that survey.
Q. All right. What has Mr. Waren got in the
way of improvements on the east half — on the west-
erly three lots on the north half of Block No. 2 ?
A. I don't know what he has now; I know he did
have three good foundations there and a fence around
his lots.
Q. What do you mean by foundations?
A. Why, foundations for buildings.
Q. Just wooden platforms were they?
A. Yes, sir, on blocks.
Q. Where is Warne now ?
A. He is somewhere in North Dakota — I think
Norwich.
Q. How long since he has been in Haines ?
A. Well, he hasn't been in Haines for 5 or 6 years.
Q. Are you his agent? A. No, sir.
274 Solomon Ripinskif vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. Anyone else in Haines Ms agent that you know
of?
A. I don 't know that he has an agent in Haines at
the present time ; Mr. Ford was his agent the last I
heard. He is now in Portland, or was the last time I
heard from him.
Q. Did you know Mr. Warne personally ?
A. I did.
Q. He was the Presbyterian missionary there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Mary V. Mcintosh'?
A. She is the daughter of A. R. Mcintosh.
Q. He is another missionary there — the present
missionary ?
A. No, sir, he is not — Rev. McLain is.
Q. He occupied that position until Mr. McLiain
came?
A. Yes, sir — that is, until Mr. Harrison came there
and McLain succeeded Harrison.
[Testimony of H. Fay, Further Cross-examination.]
H. FAY, being called for further cross-examina-
tion, testified as follows :
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Fay, you testified that
you knew that the deed from Mrs. Dickinson to Mr.
Ripinski had not been delivered up to the 14th day
of December, 1897 % A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because you were there when Grant Baldwin
was called in as a witness to that deed?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 275
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Where were you, now, at that time I
A. I was in Chilkat, in Kohler & James' store.
Q. Where was Grant Baldwin at that time ?
A. He was in that same store, in Chilkat.
Q. You were fellow-clerks in that same store ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was Mrs. Dickinson ?
A. I don't know.
Q. Who called Grant Baldwin to witness that
deed?
A. Grant Baldwin told me that Eipinski wanted
him .
Q. Never mind what he told you; did you hear
anyone ask him to come and witness that deed ?
A. No, sir, this is what Grant Baldwin told me.
Q. I'm not asking you what he told 3^ou. Now,
that was on the 14th day of December you're certain
of that?
A. No, not on the 14th day of December, it was
after that.
Q. After the 14th — why do you say that?
A. It must have been at least the 15th.
Q. Well, what day was it ?
A. I couldn't say as to that — it wasn't the 14th.
Q. Then, it must have been at least as early as the
15th?
A. Well, I don 't think so ; I think it was later still
than that.
Q. Well, must it not have been at least the 16th of
December ?
276 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. I don 't remember ; I know it wasn 't on the 14tli
— it was after that.
Q. Well, yon know it wasn't on the 14th, and it
wasn't on the 15th, didn 't you say that ?
A. I did.
Q. And you don't know whether it was on the 16th
or not ?
A. Why no, I do not ; I think it was quite a while
after the 14th of December, 1897 — quite a little time
after that.
Q. Quite a while — now, you must have something
in your mind that you mean by quite a while — was it
four days, five days, a week, or a month %
A. I couldn't say; it was quite a while ago you
must remember, but I know it was after the 14th some
time.
Q. You're positive then it was after the 14th of
December ?
A. I am positive, sir, it was after the 14th day of
December of the year 1897.
Q. It might have been on the 15th ?
A. It was after that, I believe.
Q. But how long after the 15th you're not able to
say ? A. No, sir, I can 't now remember.
Q. And you won't hazard the assertion whether it
was a day, a week, a month, or a year after the 15th ?
A. Well, it was after that I know — I couldn't say
as to the time.
Q. I don 't ask you, Mr. Fay, to be precise about the
time ; I want to get some idea of the time — you know
very well it wasn't a year afterwards?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 277
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. I don't know now when it was; that has been
a long time ago and I can't say positively as to the
time ; I remember incidents on that day because I met
all those parties I spoke of, Billy Dickinson, Grant
Baldwin and Ed Owens, and they were all playing
cards when I came in the store on the 14th of Decem-
ber— Al James, he was there, too.
Q. For Heaven's sake don't talk any more about
the 14th day of December — how much after the 15th
da}^ of December it was you're not able to state, now,
are you ?
A. No, I can 't recall now how much after it was.
Q. But it was after the 15th — you 're sure of that ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And 3^ou say that you and Grant Baldwin were
eo-emplo3'ees there in the same store ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Grant Baldwin left the store to witness
this deed %
A. No; Grant Baldwin told me that Eipinski
called him to witness the deed I said.
Q. Well, what I want to know — were you there
when Grant Baldwin went out to witness that deed'?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. Did he come back and say he had witnessed a
deed of Mrs. Dickinson to Eipinski?
A. I can't recall — simply remember there was
some conversation about it.
Q. You just remember the conversation, and the
date you don't remember % A. Yes, sir.
278 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Recalled on
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Fay, can you point out on
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 who were tlie occupants of
the different lots indicated on that exhibit at the time
of the commencement of this action — that is, on the
2d day of July, 1906?
A. Yes, I can name quite a number of them.
Q. I wish you would indicate or state so the
Referee can get it into the record, who occupied the
different lots on that tract at the beginning of this
action, in Block No. 1 ?
A. Well, this is Lot 1 in Block 1 ; this is Morrison
& Kiernan marked J. G. Morrison — shall I allude to
these as lots ?
Q. Parcels, they are called in the complaint?
A. Parcel 2 in Block 1, Nettles & Ford, they have
occupied that as a hardware store ; the building is now
used by Vogel & Brascon — I think that was the hard-
ware store ; Morrison is running a hotel in this build-
ing on Parcel 1 in Block 1 ; S. J. Weitzman occupies
Parcel 3 in Block 1 with a general merchandise busi-
ness, also the U. S. Jail is on that parcel — you don't
care for all of the buildings ?
Q. No, not particularly what they are.
A. H. Fay occupies Parcel 4 in Block 1, a general
merchandise establishment at that place.
Q. Is there a residence there also ?
A. Yes, sir, residence and barn, well, and ware-
house ; Sol. Ripinski claims Parcel 5 in Block 1, there
is a building on that occupied by the Peniel Mission.
Parcel 6 in Block 1 is occupied by J. W. Martin, he
G. W. Hinchman et al. 279
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
carries a line of general merchandise. Parcel 7 in
Block 1 is occupied by B. A. Mahan, with a barber-
shop, bath-house and residence; M. V. Mcintosh oc-
cupies Parcel 8 in Block 1, on which there is a resi-
dence occupied by J. W. Martin as a warehouse. On
Parcel 9 in Block 1 J. W. Martin has erected a new
residence on that. Parcel 10 in Block 1 is used as a
wood-yard by Ed. Fay, he is a teamster doing jobbing
around there and he has a wood-pile and uses it as a
w"ood-3"ard; it is marked James Fay, but he isn't in
the teaming business and he lets Ed. use it as a wood-
yard, it belongs to my brother.
Q. Who owns the lot?
A, James Fay. Parcel No. 11 in Block 1 is owned
by Butterick Brothers; it is occupied by them as a
restaurant and it was built by them. Well, this little
building in the back here doesn't amount to much ; and
there is a residence and chicken-house on the same
parcel.
Parcel 12 in Block 1, there is a residence on that
built by Mr. Weitzman ; this is marked R. L. Weitz-
man, belongs to Mrs. Weitzman, I believe. Parcel
No. 13 in Block 1, there is nothing on that more than
it is fenced that incloses both of the lots, and he has
about twenty-five cords of wood stacked up there
where he keeps his winter wood — hasn't room on his
other lots and has about 25 cords of wood stacked on
Parcel 13 in Block No. 1. Parcel 14 in Block 1, there
is a house there erected by E. A. Adams in which he
lives and runs a laundry. Parcel No. 15 in Block 1
is occupied by Fred Handy as a residence, by his house
280 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon}^ of H. Fay.)
and also a barn. Parcel No. 16 of Block 1 is occupied
by J. G. Morrison with Ms residence, and Parcel No.
17 in Blockl is claimed by C. C. De Haven and Tim
Creedon — there is a residence on there occupied by
De Haven.
Q. Now, were all these parcels of land you have
just described occupied by the different people you
have just named at the time of the commencement of
this action?
A. Yes, sir; there has been some improvements
since that, J. W. Martin has erected a house on his lot
which he has used to keep stuff in, &c., you know, and
since that time he has put a nice residence on it.
Q. Now, proceed in the same manner with Block
No. 2?
A. Parcel No. 1 in Block 2 is owned by Tim Vogel,
on which he has a saloon and a large building adjoin-
ing the saloon, and two other dwelling-houses and his
house. Parcel No. 2 in Block 2 is owned by T. D.
Valeur on which is a building called the "Hotel
DeFrance." Parcel No. 3 in Block 2 is owned by-
James Fay ; on it there is a dwelling-house. Parcel
No. 4 in Block 2, there is a house there owned by Ida
Johnson occupied by — let's see, the woman living in
there they call Carrie — I don't know her other name ;
Mr. Stout may be able to tell you as he is agent for that
property. S. J. Weitzman claims Parcel No. 5 in
Block 2—
Q. Is there any improvements on that lot ?
A. Yes, there is a foundation about five feet high
on that, the remnants of a store. There was a store in
G. W. Hinchman et ah 281
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
the same builclin.o; in early days, and the top of it was
a tent, and the top — let me see, — well, I don't know
whether that's there yet or not; it isn't indicated here
and I was just looking at Handy 's place there and his
residence and the other — but I think it is there now.
There is a foundation about five feet high unless Mr.
Weitzman has had it removed lately. To the best of
my recollection it is still there, although it isn't in-
dicated. Parcel No. 6 in Block 2 is occupied by M.
E. Handy, on which he has a barn and residence.
Parcel No. 7 in Block 2 is claimed by W. W. Warne,
on which he has a residence occupied by Perkins.
Parcel No. 8 in Block 2 is owned by W. W. Warne —
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You weren't asked who
o^Tied these buildings but who occupies them, and you
are going on to say who owns them. If this witness
is going on to say now who ovm.^ those parcels, I'm
going to ask him first how he knows — I object to his
stating who owns them.
By Mr. LYONS. — I don't suppose you object to his
testifying who claims them, do you, Bob ?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I do unless he knows of his
own accord.
By the WITNESS.— Well, Parcel No. 8 in Block
No. 2 is claimed by W. W. Warne, and on it —
Defendant objects to this witness testifying as to
who claims any particular lot except his own lot,
for the reason that any testimony as to who claims
them must necessarily be hearsay, the only person
who can testify to a claim being the person making
such claim.
282 Solomon Ripinsktj vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
By Mr. LYONS.— Very well, we will waive that.
Go ahead, Mr. Fay, and state who occupies those
different parcels.
A. Well, there is a residence on Parcel 8 in Block
2 occupied by Ed. Donnelley —
Q. Now, Lots 7 and 8 in Block 2 you stated were
claimed by W. W. Warne — do you know of any acts
of ownership or possession which have been exerted
over these parcels by Warne? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what he did towards appropriating
them? A. He built the houses on there.
Q. About when, approximately?
A. Well, I think it was about 1899.
Q. Now, proceed as to the occupants of the re-
maining parcels in Block 2?
A. Parcels 9, 10 and 11 in Block 2, there is a
fence around all of that and three foundations —
that is, one foundation represents each lot.
Q. Foundations constructed by whom?
A. Constructed by W. W. Warne in 1899, that
is, he had it done for him, I suppose.
Q. And a fence around the tract including those
3 lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that fence still there?
A. Well, the original fence was partly taken
down and removed and there is another fence in its
place ; that is, part of it was taken down and carried
away for firewood. That is, along here you under-
stand.
Q. When you say "along here," please indicate,
Mr. Fay, so the stenographer can get it.
G. W. Hinchman et at. 283
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. On the northwesterly end of Parcel No. 9 the
fence has been removed, and there has been a new
fence erected thereon. Parcels 12, 13 and 14 are all
enclosed with a fence, two houses thereon — I don't
know the part they live in — this house here there is
a soldier's wife lives, there is a bath-house and dwel-
ling-house on 12, 13 and 14 in Block 2; this part here
is all garden, fenced in, and potatoes and other stuff
planted there.
Q. Where, w^here Mr. Fay, indicate itf
A. On 12, 13 and a part of 14, this is all garden,
and it is all fenced and there are two residences on
that ; that space there they have garden truck there,
vegetables, &c., and there are two houses on there
Bjornstad put up to rent and this one here is occu-
pied at present, or was a month or so ago but I don't
know whether there is anybody in that house or
not —
Q. What house?
A. In the north house there on Parcel 14 in Block
2. The other is occupied as a dwelling and bath-
house.
Q. Now, were all of these parcels of land you
have just described in Block No. 2 occupied by the
various people you have just described, and clauued
by the various people you have just described, at
the time of the commencement of this action?
Defendant objects to any testimony as to who the
claimants of the lots were for the reason that it is
pure hearsay and is bound to be hearsay — that isn't
the way to prove who claims lots.
284 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fa}^)
A. The people who occupy or claim these lots
in all cases do not own them — some of them of course
rent —
Q. Mr. Fay, will you please listen to my ques-
tion, and we will get along very well. Were they
occupied by these people at the date of the com-
mencement of this action? A. They were.
Q. The people you have just described — by the
people you have just described?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— He described both the oc-
cupants and the claimants, Mr. Lyons and I object.
Q. I am referring to the occupants now. Were
the}' occupied b}^ the people you have described as
occupants at the time of the commencement of this
action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were those different lots in the possession
of those people at the date of the commencement of
this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had the improvements you have described as
having been made by the different people claiming
these lots, been made thereon prior to the commence-
ment of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Proceed now, with reference to Block No. 3f
A. Parcel No. 1 in Block 3 is occupied — j^ou just
want who they are occupied by?
Q. The occupants, yes, sir?
A. This is O'Ccupied by some natives.
Q. Who, if anyone, ever improved that lot?
A. Mary V. Macintosh improved it and built on
it — had a house erected on it.
Q. When?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 285
(Testimony of H. Pay.)
A. I think it was in 1899, it was used as a — they
rim a paper in there called the "Porcupine Quill";
it was published in that building.
Q. Do you know whether or not she leased it
to those Indians'? A. Yes, she did.
Q. Had she leased it to anyone at the time of
the commencement of this action, do you know?
A. Well, of course, it has been leased at differ-
ent times, and people down there generally stay a
while and move away. It was leased prior to that
time to different parties jou know.
Q. Has she exercised, since the construction of
that building, the right of possession in and to that
lot? A. She has.
Q. All right; go aihead now.
A. Parcel No. 2 in Block 3, on which is a house
occupied by natives —
Q. By whom was that lot improved, if anyone?
A. These two houses really belonged — there is a
house on Parcel No. 3 here in Block 3 that belongs to
this party.
Q. To the party on Parcel No. 2 you mean?
A. Yes, sir, Parcel 2 in Block 3, but the line cuts
it off this way, you see. Sometimes when they
would measure their lots they wouldn't get them
right, you see; there are really two houses on Par-
cel 2 in Block 3, and only one of them is indicated
on that map.
Q. Who erected those houses?
A. One house was erected by a j^arty by the name
of Jimmy Pozzo.
286 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fa}^)
Q. When was that house built *?
A. I think in 1898.
Q. Who occupies that parcel now"?
A. Some natives occupy it now, are renting it.
Q. From whom?
A. Well, I'm not certain as to that; the party
that owns it is the father in law, is a native and I
presume — well, I don't know who they rent it from,
that's the sum and substance of it; I was agent for
them for a while.
Q. For whom!
A. I was agent for the party that owns it now,
Q. Well, who is that, Mr. Fay*?
A. Well, I don't really know whether Bryson is
owner of it; it is marked "William Bryson." He
did own it; he has been gone some time and his
father in law^ comes in there and lives; the go back
and forth between Klukwan and Haines, and when
he comes down he stops in it sometimes there, and
sometimes his son.
Q. Now, proceed with the next parcel — Parcel
No. 3 in Block No. 3?
A. Parcel No. 3 in Block 3, there is nobody oc-
cupying those premises at present.
Q. Was it ever improved by anyone?
A. Yes; and it was occupied by some natives —
Q. By whom was it improved?
A. It was improved by V. Reeder.
Q. When?
A. If I remember rightly in 1898 or 1899.
Q. You say some natives occupy it now?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 287
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did tliey occupy it at the commencement of
this action — no, strike that out. Do you know
whether or not these natives claim it themselves?
A. No, they rent it.
Q. From whom? A. From me.
Q. You own the lot then?
A. No, sir, I'm agent for it.
Q. For whom are you agent?
A. For V. Reeder.
Q. And you were agent for him at the time of the
commencement of this action, were you?
A. Yes, sir, for that lot.
Q. All right. Now, proceed — just a moment,
you 'held possession of that lot for V. Reeder at the
time of the commencement of this action, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Very well. Now, proceed?
A. E. J. Burger occupies Parcel 4 — that is, he
doesn't exactly occupy it; Parcel 4 in Block 3 there
is a house on that, and I don't believe anyone occu-
pies that at present.
Q. Who built that house?
A. E. J. Burger.
Q. When? A. In 1898 or 1899, I think.
Q. Where is Mr. Burger now?
A. I don't know.
Q. Has anyone been living in that house re-
cently? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. Mr. McElravy.
288 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Do yoiT know whether he leases it or claims
it? A, He rents it, yes, sir.
Q. From whom?
A. W. B. Stout, agent for Mr. Burger.
Q. Now, proceed with the next one?
A. Parcel No. 5 in Block 3 is occupied by Tom
Lahey.
Q. How long has it been occupied by him?
A. Oh, I think nearly two years.
Q. Does he claim it as his or lease it?
A. He rents it from the Bjornstad's.
Q. All right; proceed with the next?
A. Parcel 6 in Block 3, there is nobody that oc-
cupies that; there is the remnants of a bakery that
was there.
Q. Who built the baker}^ there originally?
A. If I remember right, it was Andrew Dreer —
I don't know as to a certainty about that.
Q. You say the remnants of a bakery — what de-
stroyed the bakery — why do you describe it as the
'' remnants"?
A. Why, there was just a board floor, and the
sides and rafters of lumber and a tent over the top,
that was what comprised the bakery.
Q. Is that lot fenced? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of anyone exercising any acts
of possession over it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. Carl Bjornstad.
Q. Do you know whether he exercised such acts
of ownership or rights at the time of the commence-
ment of this action? A. Yes, sir, he did.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 289
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Is lie a- resident of Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And a party to this suit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, proceed.
A. Parcel No. 7 in Block 3 is occupied by George
Hinchman. Let's see; parcels 7 and 8 are all fenced
and George Hinchman has a residence thereon in
which he lives and he uses the balance of it for a
garden.
Q. Mr. Hinchman is one of the witnesses who has
already testified in this case? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he in possession of that land at the time
of the commencement of this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for how long prior thereto?
A. For many years.
Q. And he is in possession of it at the present
tune?
A. Yes, sir. And then Parcel No. 9, that has
been transferred in the last few months, I believe
it is owned —
Q. Who occupies it?
A. Well, a party — there is no house on there
now, but there is a man over at the Post there and
after his work he goes over and does work on it,
getting it in shape to build.
Q. Who improved it originalh^, if there are any
improvements on it?
A. Let's sec, I don't know; there is no building
on it.
Q. Is it fenced? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who built the fence around it?
290 Solomon Ripinsky vs,
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, proceed with tlie nexf?
A. Parcel No. 10 in Block 3 has been occupied by
H. Cougar, until just this last few days.
Q. Was it occupied by Mr. Cougar at the date
of the commencement of this action *?
A. Yes, sir, I understand so.
Q. He was in possession of it at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you say he vacated it in the last few
days? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who occupies it now?
A. I think he occupies it now, but I think he
has sold it and hasn't moved out yet. Then Parcels
11 and 12 are occupied b}^ William Holgate; he has
a residence and a garden on there.
Q. Was he in possession of those lots at the date
of the commencement of this action?
A. Let's see — yes, sir.
Q. Proceed now in the same manner with Block
No. 4?
A. Parcel No. 1 in Block 4 isn't occupied at pres-
ent, the house isn't.
Q. Who built that building, if you know?
A. Kate Kabler.
Q. When?
A. Well, let's see; I think that was in 1902—1901
or 1902.
Q. And the building stands there yet?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 291
(Testmion.y of H. Fay.)
Q. Do you know whether it has ever been oc-
cupied since that house was built or not"?
A. I don't, no.
Q. Well, proceed?
A. Parcel 2 in Block 4 — let me see, Parcel 2 —
Q. Well, if you don't remember —
A. I do remember, but it seems to me they are
misplaced here in some way; I'll tell you how that
is. Now, let's see here — Oh, yes, I believe I know
how that is now — that's not occupied either.
Q. Do you remember whether there is any build-
ing or structure on it % A. Yes, sir.
Q. By w^hom was that built I
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. You see the measurements on the map aren't
just the same as they are on the ground, for the
simple reason that these lots were laid off with a
tape-line. For instance, this lot w^here it shows on
the map if you go and see it there it is practically
on the corner; that we would consider the line there
may not be just right, didn't get our measurements
accurate you see like a surveyor would and it mixes
a body up in defining just the location. Let's see;
this Parcel 2, in Block 4, there is nobody occupying
that house at present.
Q. Do you know by whom that building there
was erected?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Yes, I do, but I can't just recall his name.
Q. Proceed with the next lot then?
292 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Parcel 3 in Block 4 isn't occupied at pres-
ent.
Q. That's marked H. Fay, isn't it?
A
Q
A
Q
Q
A
Yes.
Are you the owner of that lot now?
No, sir.
Who is? A. V. Reeder.
Who built the house on it?
Why, there was two Italian boys, Jimmy
Pozzi, and the other one I don't remember his name
at this time. '"
Q. It isn't occupied now? A. No.
Q. When was that house built?
A. I think it was in 1898.
Q. When was the last act of ownership Mr.
Reeder exercised over it?
A. Well, I am his agent.
Q. And you have the possession of the lot now
for him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had the possession of that lot at the date
of the commencement of this action, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Very well; proceed.
A. Parcels 4, 5 and 6 in Block 4 are occupied
by Peter Johnson's son; Pete Johnson of course —
well, I don't suppose that makes any difference —
they are all occupied and he owns then, and Pete
Johnson's son lives in here and these are occupied by
natives; I can't call their names, of course.
Q. Which one does Pete Johnson's son live in
— on which lot?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 293
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. He lives on Parcel 4, and there are natives
living on the other two, 5 and 6.
Q. Well, they occupied those premises at the
date of the commencement of this action, did they?
A. Well, that I don't know.
Q. Who built those houses'?
A. Well, Pete Johnson's son built that house
there — he removed an old house that had been there
previous to that time.
Q. When did he build the new house?
A. I think in 1906.
Q. Was he in possession and occupying that lot
at the date of the commencement of this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do the natives that live on the other two lots,
do you know whether they claim to own it them-
selves or whether they lease it from Johnson?
A. I don't know whether they lease from John-
son— Weitzman is the agent for Johnson, I think.
Q. Proceed — just a moment, do you know where
Pete Johnson is at this time?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Verj^ well, go ahead?
A. Parcels 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Block 4, the
improvements on there were all destroj'ed by the
forest fire in 1903.
Q. Then there are no improvements there now?
A. No.
Q. Is that tract of land included in the north-
erly tier of lots in Block No. 4 under fence?
A. No, sir — well, partly, I will say.
291- Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Do you know whether anyone occupies them
now or not ? A. Well, Mr. Hinchman —
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant to any
of the issues made by the pleadings; those lots are
not claimed by an}" plaintiff and are not mentioned
in the bill of particulars at all — not mentioned in
the bill of complaint as having been claimed by any-
one at all.
A. The northeast end — let's see, the east end of
the north half of Block No. 1 is partially occupied
by George Hinchman with a garden there.
Q. Proceed with the next — yes, I'll ask you, was
Mr. Hinchman occupying those parcels of land as a
garden at the time of the commencement of this
action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in possession of the same ?
A. I don't know really whether he owns them,
or who does — I know he had his garden there.
Q. Well, proceed now, with Block No. 5?
A. Lot 1 in Block 5, now this lot is claimed by
Dannerline and occupied by his two houses as il-
lustrated on this map but he has only one house, I
believe, on the ground he claims because our lines
are not the same as the survey.
Q. Where is the other house?
A. The house he owns is mostly on the street —
this is Dennerline's house here, when he was put-
ting it up of course he thought he was getting it
right —
By Mr. JENNINGS.— How do you know that?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 295
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Because naturally he wouldn't put it in the
street.
Q. Well, you just testify to what you know Mr.
Fay.
By Mr. LYONS. — He has a house on those lots %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who occupies that"?
A. He has that as a blacksmith shop, and has
things stored in there, nobody occupies it.
Q. Was that building there prior to the com-
mencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was and is in the possession of Mr.
Dannerline'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Proceed?
A. On Parcel 2 Block 5, this house is claimed by
Mr. Handy —
Defendant objects to any testimony as to the
house being occupied by anybody.
— I state that because it is indicated on Lot 1 in
Block 5 and it doesn't belong to the party that owns
parcel 1 in Block 5.
Defendant objects to any testimony whatever by
this witness as to the party that any particular lot
belongs to.
Q, Mr. Handy occupies that house?
A. No, he doesn't occupy it at present.
Q. Are there any improvements on Parcel 4?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are the improvements there?
A. There is a nice large dwelling-house there.
296 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimonr of H. Fay.)
Q. I meant on Parcel 2 in Block 5 marked "M.
E. Handy"?
A. There isn't as indicated on tMs map, bnt there
is a house on his lot; the lines don't inin, as I say,
right; but this house belongs to Handy as indicated
on Lot 1 in Block 5.
Q. Mr. Handy built it, did he?
A. Xo, sir, Mr. Handy put it there, but moved it
from another part of town.
Q. When?
A. Oh, I should judge three or four years ago.
Q. Has he occuj^ied it since then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of the time since then?
A. No, not all of the time.
Q. I mean has he been in possession of it with
that building all the time?
A. Yes, he has moved now, though; he is log-
ging— isn't at Haines at all now.
Q. Proceed with the other lots now?
A. Parcel Xo. 3 in Block 5, there is no residence
thereon.
Q. Is there a fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it enclosed by a fence?
A. I think about three years ago.
Q. By whom? A. By Ed. Fay.
Q. Is he in possession of it now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he in possession of it at the date of the
commencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
G. W, Hinchman et al. 297
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Now, the next lot?
A. Parcel No. 4 in Block 5 there is a residence
thereon, occupied by a native who is renting it.
Q. Who built the residence thereon?
A. John Paddock.
Q. When w^as that — before the commencement of
this action?
A. Yes, sir, about three or four years ago.
Q. Was Mr. Paddock in possession of that lot at
the beginning of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he is still in possession?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say a native occupies it — does he rent to
the native? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Very well; proceed.
A. Parcel No. 5 in Block 5, there is no house on
that.
Q. Is it also enclosed with a fence? An}^ im-
provements on the lot at all ?
A. It is enclosed by a fence ; yes.
Q. By whom was it so enclosed?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know who is in possession of it now?
A. No, I do not.
Q. All right; proceed with the next parcel?
A. Parcel No. 6 in Block 5, there is a house on
there and Mrs. Craig lives in it, her dwelling-house.
Q. Who built that house?
A. Her husband.
Q. And was there a house on there at the date
of the commencement of this action?
298 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, sir; it is partly in the street I will say.
Q. Was she in possession of that lot at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is in possession of it still?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember how long ago that honse
was built?
A. I think about six or seven years ago.
Q. Proceed?
A. Well, Parcels 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Block
5—
The defendant at this time objects to am^ testi-
mony with reference to those parcels on the ground
they are not mentioned in the complaint as being
occupied by anyone.
Q. Do you know whether they are owned or oc-
cupied by anyone at the present time?
A. I do not, at the present time.
Q. Proceed, Mr. Fay?
A. Well, Lots 1 and 2 in Block 6 are occupied by
Tim Creedon and on which there are two houses.
Q. They are not marked on this plat?
A. Xo, sir.
Q. But you say there are two houses there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they on those lots at the date of the
commencement of tliis action, do you know?
A. They were not, I think.
Q. They have been built since. Well, were there
any improvements on the lots at the date of the
commencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 299
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. Wh'at improvements?
A. They were fenced.
Q. By whomf
A. Ed. Woods and A. J. Dennerline.
Q. Who were in possession of the lots at the date
of the commencement of this action'?
A. Ed. Woods and A. J. Dennerline.
Q. Who occupies them now?
A. Tim Creedon.
Q. Were they actually occupied at the date of
the commencement of this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They are marked Joe Stubbier and A. J. Den-
nerline? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are those the parties they actually occupj^
them now? A. No, sir.
Q. Who does occupy them now?
A. Tim Creedon.
Q. Do you know whether or not Tim Creedon
is in ]3ossession of those lots under lease from any-
one, or whether he is asserting ownership to them?
A. He is asserting ownership of them.
Defendant moves to strike the answer as be-
ing a mere conclusion of the witness.
Q. He is in possession of those lots?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was at the date of the commencement
of this action? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, Ed. Woods and A. J. Dennerline were?
A. Yes, sir. He bought the lots with the im-
provements.
300 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. All right, proceed. You have been describing
lots 1 and 2 in Block 6 ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about lot 3?
Defendant objects to any testimony about lot 3
in Block 6 on the ground that it is not mentioned in
the complaint as being claimed by anyone.
A. Well, I don't know ; they claim t^YO lots there ;
they have two lots there but I think one of those
lots will be away off the line^beyond here, or at
least on the west end of the south half of Block 6
there are no other buildings.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Fay, you seem to have
a pretty good memory; you remember who lives in
all of those houses and everywhere else, and you re-
member who claims them, and you remember
whether the person, each person occupies under a
lease, and whether the lease has expired, and who
built the buildings, and who built the fences and a
lot of particulars like that — your memory has "been
refreshed a good deal since the last time I had you
on the witness-stand and asked you the date of that
transaction with Grant Baldwin hasn't it — your
memory has grown in strength and clearness since
that time, hasn't it? A. Oh, I don't know.
Q. Don't you know it has*? Now, Mr. Fay, when
was the last time you talked to Mary V. Macin-
tosh about this property?
A. Oh, I should judge a few months ago.
Q. Did you talk about that particular lot?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 301
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. What did she tell you about that lot, the one
her name appears on there?
A. We were making assessments to pay for the
costs of this action, and it was in reference to what
she owed —
Q. In reference to what she owed?
A. Yes, her proportion of the assessment levied.
Q. How long ago has it been since you talked
with W. W. Warne about his lots, the ones named
with his name there?
A. I haven't seen him since he left the Mission.
Q. When was the last time before this action
that you talked to Sol. Ripinski about this parc^
that has got his name on it — that is to say, Parcel
5 in Block 4? A. I don't know.
Q. You never did talk to him about it did you?
A. I don't know.
Q. How do you know that Sol. Ripinski claims
that? A. He told me he did.
Q. When?
Q. When we used to go to him to hire the hall
for different purposes, years ago.
Q. Long before this suit was begun?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know he claimed it at the time
this suit was begun?
A. Well, I didn't realh^ know.
Q. What did he say he claimed down there when
you asked him about it last?
A. Well, it was called the Ripinski building and
302 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
it was conunon rumor that it belonged to Mm — I
don't know for a fact that he owns it.
Q. You don't know whether he sold that prop-
erty before this suit was begun or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know whether W. W. Warne sold
that property marked with his name there before
this suit was commenced or not?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. You haven't seen him, have you?
A. I have been communicating with him, jes.
Q. When was the last time you got a letter from
Warne?
A. Well, I believe the last communication I had
from him was about six months ago.
Q. Did he state in that connnunication that he
still owned those lots? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What lots?
A. I wrote to him in regard to his assessment;
we were all levied on, Cortz Ford was treasurer at
the time for the tovrn people, and as he was going
away he asked me to write to Mr. Warne and tell
him his assessment was so much.
Q. What lots — I don't suppose the different lots
were mentioned in the letter?
A. No, just "his lots."
Q. Then you don't know what lots he was talk-
ing about when he referred to them in answer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 303
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Because I know the property lie owns down
there.
Q. The property he did own at one time — you
don't know what property he claimed at the time
of his answer, do you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know'?
A. Because I have been on the ground this last
eight or ten years and am familiar with the prop-
erty.
Q. Mr. Warne's name appears on five different
lots — does he own those now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you mean to say he mentioned all those
five lots when he answered yo\w letter about the as-
sessment? A. He didn't mention an}^ lots at
all.
Q. He just said his property? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And therefore you come up here, sir, and get
on the stand to swear that Warne owns those five
lots, and yet that's all you know about it?
A. When I say he claims them, I say he repre-
sents them; some of the lots are claimed by his wife
and some by his wife's sister. He re^Dresents them
and always paid any necessary expenses that were
to be paid on them.
Q. But some of it belongs to his sister and some
to his wife? A. I think so.
Q. Which ones belong to his sister and which to
his wife you don't pretend to say? A. Xo, sir.
Q. Nor as to which part belongs to him?
A. I know part of them belong to him.
304 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
Q. What part of them belong to him — tell me
now?
A. The parcels 7 and 8 in Block 1, the one on
which he built a residence.
Q. How do you know it belongs to him — how do
you know he hasn't conveyed them to his sister or
his wife but still represents themf
A. I don't know that.
Q. And Katie Kabler may have conveyed that
propert}^ of hers to somebody else for all you know*?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Pete Johnson may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And M. E. Handy may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And William Bryson may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And H. Cougar may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And George Hinchman may have done the
same thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And John Paddock may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mrs. Jesse Craig may have done the
same thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Joe Stubbier and A. J. Dennerline may
have done the same thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They ma}^ have conve^yed that property and
you not know anything about it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Henry Eappolt and E. J. Burger may
have done the same thing and you not know it?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 305
(Testimony of H. Fay.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And William Holgate may have clone tlie same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Tim Vogel may have done the same
thing'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And T. D. Valour may have done the same
thing? A. Yes sir.
Q. And J. W. Martin, and James Fay may have
done the same? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Sol. Ripinski may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And R. L. Weitzman may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And V. Biitterick may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And E. A. Adams may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Fred Handy may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And J. G. Morrison may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And G. C. De Haven may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Tim Creedon may have done the same
thing? A. Yes, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — But you know that nearly all
of these parties that Mr. Jennings has just spoke
to you about, have exercised acts of ownership over
the property they claim since the beginning of this
suit, don't you? A. Yes, sir.
306 Solomon Ei pi risky vs.
(Testimoii}' of H. Fay.)
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and im-
material, and move to strike the answer.
And be it further remembered that to further
maintain the issues on their behalf, the plaintiffs
called sundry native Indians to testify in their be-
half; and it being stated to the referee that said
witnesses could not speak the English language,
WILLIAM JACKSOX, a native, was thereupon by
the referee duly sworn to intei'pret the English lan-
guage into Indian and the Indian into English as
the interrogatories of counsel were propounded and
the answers thereto given; whereupon PETER
BROWN, a native, was called and first duly sworn
b}" the Referee through said interpreter, and in the
same manner thereupon testified on
[Testimony of Peter Brown, for the Plaintiffs.]
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYOXS.— What is your name?
A. Peter Brown.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Where do you live?
Haines Mission.
How long have you lived in Haines?
A long time.
How many years?
I have lived there since I am a young man.
Are you an old man now? A. Yes, sir.
You're a native of Alaska, are you not?
Yes, sir, I belong to the Chilkats.
And you don't speak the English language?
Xo, sir.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 307
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
Q. Do you know Solomon Ripinski, the defend-
ant in this action? A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. How long have you know him?
A. I have known him since he came to Haines.
Q. Do you know one Billy Dickinson?
A. Yes, sir, I know him.
Q. Did you know Sarah Dickinson, the mother
of Billy Dickinson, in her lifetime?
A. Yes, sir, I have known her when she came
there ; she never stops there now at all.
Q. How many years did you know her?
A. I don't know how many years; but I have
seen her come into that place for awhile and go
back; every once in awhile she came there.
Q. Is she living now?
A. I do not know whether she is living now or
not.
Q. Do you know where Mrs. Dickinson lived in
Haines ?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Where did she live — in what part of Haines
did she live?
A. Here is a big road right here, used to be our
trail, we Indians, and she lived this side of it.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1 and ask you if you kno^^^ — I will state that
this Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 is a plat of a portion of
the town of Haines. In the southeast corner of that
plat is what is known as the Morrison hotel. Do
308 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
you know where Morrison's hotel is situated in the
town of Haines? A. I don't know his name.
Q. Do you know where the old hotel is in
Haines? A. Yes, I know the hotel.
Q. Do you know where the postof&ce is in
Haines? A. Yes, sir, I know it.
Q. The United States postoffice. Well, where
was Mrs. Dickinson's place she lived in with refer-
ence to the postoffice?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and in-
definite.
Q. Was it between the postoffice and the bay, or
was it up the hill further away from the bay ?
Objected to as innnaterial and irrelevant, no time
fixed at all, and indefinite.
A. Yes, this is the postoffice here, and Mrs. Dick-
inson's ground runs up a little below the postoffice.
Q. It runs up to a little below the postoffice ?
A. Yes, he said so once.
Q. It runs up from the bay, or in the vicinity of
the bay, up from the beach towards the postoffice?
A. Yes, sir, from her house up to that place.
Q. What did Mrs. Dickinson have where she
lived?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and in-
definite.
— in the way of houses, or buildings, or fences?
A. She have built a warehouse out of logs, she
built a log cabin there, and a house where she used
to live, and a little garden.
G. W. Hincliman et ah 309
(Testimon.y of Peter Brown.)
Q. Where was the little garden with reference
to her house?
A. The back side of that house.
Q. Did she do any clearing there, clearing off
the stumps or brush and trees'?
A. Yes, sir, she did; I have done it for her; I dig
some stumps out and bushes, I have cut the bushes
out from her ground where she is going to put garden,
and I put some posts there for her.
Q. Where did he put the posts'?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. In the corner.
Q. On the corners of the ground he cleared for
her?
A. He put up the posts for her, the ground he
cleared for her, right on the corners.
Q. Did he enclose the ground for her with a
fence ?
A. I didn't build no fence around there for her
at all; I just cut the bushes and the stumps right in
the line of the posts, so it would look like a fence.
Q. How much ground, how large a piece of
ground did he enclose in that line of brush"?
A. I don't know how large it was, but I suppose
if I would go to that place I could see where I put
the posts, where I piled the bushes and the stumps.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Eipinski lives now
in Haines? A. Yes, sir, I know it.
Q. Was that the piece of ground you cleared for
Mrs. Dickinson? A. Yes, sir.
310 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever clear any other part
of the town of Haines?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and im-
material, and no proper foundation laid.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she ever improve or clear any other por-
tion of the town of Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she ever fence, inclose with a fence, any
other portion of the town of Haines ?
Objected to as innnaterial and irrelevant, and no
proper foundation laid.
A. No, sir, she never fenced any part of any
ground in Haines Mission but that little garden — I
have worked on it for her.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1 again, and also to that little tract on the east
of it that is marked Blpinski Homestead, to which
I now point — that is the tract where Mr. Eipinski
now resides, and that is between the town of Haines
and the beach — is that the parcel of land that you
cleared for Mrs. Dickinson?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir, he says it isn't. He says I have
cleared a little garden for her and that's all, and
that's not so big.
Q. Not so big as that where Eipinski is ?
A. Yes, sir, not so big.
Q. When did you clear that ground for Mrs.
Dickinson ?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 311
(Testimouy of Peter Brown.)
A. Any time the spring came, she always tolcl
me to do some little work on her garden, every time
the spring came, until she finished it.
Q. Was that before Mr. Eipinski went to Haines
to live ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Mr. Ripinski isn't there and we don't know
Mr. Ripinski at all at that time; some time after
that he came.
Q. Do you know whether or not Mrs. Dickinson
sold her garden to Ripinski?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and not
the best evidence. Not the proper way to prove
such a transaction at all.
A. I know she sold her place.
Q. To Mr. Ripinski, the defendant in this case?
A. To Mr. Ripinski, yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how much land she sold to him?
Objected to as incompetent and immaterial and
irrelevant, and not the proper way to prove the con-
tents of a deed.
A. Yes, I know.
Q. How much?
A. This is Ripinski 's house now where he is
living, and Mrs. Dickinson sold the garden the back
side of his house around this way, and there was a
log cabin here that run this way, with a log cabin
she sold it.
Q. Is that the piece of ground he has described
that he cleared for her and inclosed with this
brush — is that the same piece of ground?
312 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Peter Browu.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present when Mrs. Dickinson trans-
ferred or sold that piece of ground to Ripinski ?
A. No, sir, I wasn't present at the time, but Mrs.
Dickinson told me Ripinski bought her place; she
never tells us how much she got for it.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— How old are you, Peter
Brown ? A. I do not know my age.
Q. Is he a very old man?
A. You have seen me sitting here with gray hair.
Q. Ask him how long his name has been Peter
Brown ?
A. He says since the Judge has come in this to
Skagway he has given me that name.
Q. His name was Peter French the last tune he
testified up here, wasn't it — ask him if his name
wasn't Peter French?
A. My name used to be that the first time.
Q. Who asked him to come up here and swear
this time to what he knows and be a witness ?
A. This white man here.
Q. Which white man?
A. He sajs Mr. Fay.
Q. Does he know Mr. Fay pretty well?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long has he known Mr. Fay?
A. I have known Mr, Fay a long time now.
Q. He buys goods in Mr. Fay's store quite often,
does he?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 313
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
A. I buy goods from the stores in Haines
Mission ; I don 't come in Mr. Fay 's store very often ;
sometimes I go there and buy something from him.
Q. Pretty often? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much did Mr. Fay tell him he would
pay him to come up here and be a witness?
A. I don't know how much he will pay me; he
come around and took me for a witness; that's all
I know.
Q. Did he say he would pay him for it if he
would come up here and be a witness?
A. Of course yes, he says ; if you can be a witness
you will be paid for a witness.
Q. Did Mr. Fay tell him how much?
A. At the first time he came to me, he explained
all this to me that I will get pay for a witness, just
for a witness, he never tells me how much.
Q. Never told him how much?
A. He don't say how much; just tells me that I
will get pay by the witness.
Q. Did he say who would pay it?
A. He saj^s he told me we will be a witness, you
be a witness also, that is, and I will pay you for your
witness.
Q. He saj^s, "I will pay you for it"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he ask Peter any other questions — any
questions about Mrs. Dickinson ? Just ask Peter if
he told Mr. Fa}^ what he was going to swear to.
A. No, sir; I never talk to him about it all; I
was sitting right in m}' house and he came around.
314 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
the time was j^rett}' close, and he came around in a
rush and I don't have time to say anything about it
all.
Q. Mr. Fay came around and got him to go on the
boat and told him he would pay him as a witness if
he would comf- uj> here and be a witness — is that
right ?
A. Yes, he told me that we will go up to the Court
and he will be one of the witnesses, too, and you will
go too; so I got ready in a short time to go.
Q. Ask him if he was xerj anxious to get pay for
a witness?
A. I didn't go around in that place and ask for
it if I can he a witness so as to earn money ; of course,
I am just sitting in the house there and he was the
first man that came to nie that I can be a witness so
of course I ha\'e to come if I am asked.
Q. Ask him if he was present when Mrs. Dir-kin-
son sigur-d tlif- paper and gave it to Eip>inski about
tlie land?
A. No, sir; I wasn't present, but Mrs. Dickinson
have told me that she sold the place.
Q. That's all, was it, that she told him?
A. That's all.
Q. But vshe didn't tflj hijn how imu-h she got?
A. Xo, sir.
Q. You sa}' }oii li\'e at Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You live at Berner's Bay, don't you?
A. I never lived at Berner's Bay at all, but
Seward City; a long time after Mrs. Dickinson came
G. W. Hincliman ct ah 315
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
to Haines, Seward City was discovered and I went
down there and lived there for a while.
Q. How long?
A. I don't know how long: I have got a home in
Haines Mission, and therefore I never stay away
from my house; one time I came down to Seward
City, but I never stay there very long.
Q. You lived at Seward City, and you sold your
place at Seward City just two years ago, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And up to that time he lived over at Seward
City, up to two years ago?
A. TVell. I lived just before I sold my place in
Seward City; I used to live there every once in a
while, but I sold my place — I never lived there.
Redirect Examination.
By ]\rr. LYONS. — Is this the season of the year
when you do your fishing, when you're fishing?
A. Yes. sir: this is the time we do fishing; after
this Fourth of July.
Q. Can he make as much catching fish as he
could coming here to be a witness? A. No. sir.
Q. He stated a moment ago he lived at Seward;
ask him whether he lived there permanently, or just
went there to get work sometimes ?
A. I went down to Seward Cit\' because there
was a gold mine there, and lots of work there, and I
went d(^wn there in the purpose of getting work.
Q, Did you imderstand me when I asked you
whether you could earn more money fishing, or act-
ins: as a witness in this case?
316 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
Olbjectecl to for tlie reason that the question put to
the witness was perfectly plain, intelligible and un-
ambiguous, and the witness answered it plainly, in-
telligently and unambiguously and directly, and
counsel now in repeating this question is tr^dng to
lead the witness,
Q. I' withdraw the question, and I will ask him
and see if he did understand: Which can you make
the most money, catching fish or testifying as a wit-
ness in this case?
Same objection.
A. He says fishing is a very good for us — for my-
self also. I can make much money in a day fishing,
and just because this white man came to me and told
me to come up here as a witness I have to come up
here to this place and leave my job there where I
can make the most money; I don't expect to make
much in this witness fees for testifying.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — Ask him how much he does
expect to make as a witness in this case?
A. I do not know what you say about this at all.
Suppose you are asked by somebody to go up to that
place and because you get paid for it and you will
go ; that is the same with myself. I am told to come
here, and they told me I will get pay, so I have to
come here.
Q. Ask him if he don't expect to get as much pay
as a witness as he would for fishing?
A. I don't expect very much from this witness.
Q. Don 't he know how much he does expect ?
G. W. Ilinchman et al. 317
(Testimony of Peter Brown.)
A. I don't know how much I am expecting, but
I am keeping account of the days, the time we came
up here.
A. He is keeping account of it. Ask him if he
fishes very often? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who does he sell his fish to I
A. I sell my fish to the cannery.
Q. How much a day does he make fishing 1
A. When the big run, if those days when there
is a big run, I make twenty dollars a day, sometimes.
Q. Twenty dollars a day?
A. If there is lots of fish I make twenty dollars
in that day.
Q. Ask him what he does with his surplus cash —
if he puts it out at interest?
Q. What do I do with the cash I have, he says?
I spend it for my clothes and living.
Q. He spends twenty dollars a day — all right.
Now ask him how many times he has been a witness ?
A. This is the second time I am a witness in the
Ripinski case.
Q. How many times altogether, any cases that
he has been a witness in?
A. This is the third time.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Ask him if it is not true that
some of the natives down there refused to come up
to testify in this case because they wouldn't be paid
anything but their witness fees?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and call-
ing for a self-serving declaration.
318 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of Joe Kajikan.)
A. Yes, sir ; some of those Indians are refused to
come up liere because tbey would like to stay down
there where they can make the most money.
[Testimony of Joe Kajikan, for the Plaintiffs.]
JOE KAJIKAN, a native, being called to testify
on behalf of the plaintiffs, and first duly sworn
through said interpreter, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— What's your name?
A. Joe.
Q. Where do you live'? A. Haines.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines?
A. I don 't know how long ; I have never kept ac-
count of it.
Q You're an old man, too, aren't you?
A. You have seen me here; I am an old man; I
don't know much about anything at all; I am old
before I know something.
Q. Well, has he lived in Haines all his life?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You're a native Alaskan, are you not?
A. I wouldn't say I belonged to any other place;
I belong to this place up here.
Q. You don't speak the English language well,
do you? A. No, sir.
Q. Ho you know Solomon Eipinski, the defend-
ant in this action?
A. I have known Sol. Eipinski; he is our friend.
Q. How long have you known Mr. Eipinski?
A. I have known him, of course, for a long time.
6r. W. Hincliman et al. 319
(Testimony of Joe Kajikan.)
Q. Do you know Mrs. Sarah Dickinson"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you know Mrs. Dickinson ?
A. I don't know how long, but it's a pretty long
time now.
Q. Do you know a man they call Billy Dickin-
son? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Sarah Dickinson ever live in Haines %
A. I knew her there, she was a daughter of Mrs.
Dickinson.
Q. Did Mrs. Sarah Dickinson ever live in Haines ?
A. Well, she don't live there very long; she stays
there awhile and then goes away again.
Q. Did she have any buildings or ground in
Haines? A. Who, Sarah?
Q. Yes?
A. I don't remember that Sarah has a house or
ground in Haines, but her father used to have a house
and ground in Haines Mission.
Q. Sarah Dickinson is the mother of Bill^^ Dick-
inson, isn't she? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did Sarah Dickinson live in Haines?
A. If she comes to Haines she lives in her father's
house.
Q. Is that the same house, or is it in the same place
as the house now occupied by the defendant Eipinski?
A. Yes, sir, that's the same place, the same house.
Q. You'll have to excuse me. Bob (Mr. Jennings) ,
if I lead these witnesses — did Mrs. Dickinson or her
father do any improving of the ground right close to
her house ?
320 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimonj^ of Joe Kajikan.)
A. Of course ; it is the custom of tiie white people
to clear around her house — or his house.
Q. Well, did Mrs. Dickinson clear around — did
she or her father clear around their house in Haines 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she have a garden there ?
A. They had a garden alongside of her house.
Q. Was there any fence around her garden?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Q. How much land or ground did Mrs. Dickinson
improve or claim there ?
Objected to so far as the word "claim" is used, for
the reason that this witness is incompetent to testify
how much ground Mrs. Dickinson claimed.
A. Well, white man, I don't know how big his
ground is, and of course I don't know just how many
feet, how big his ground is.
Q. How far did it extend up the hill easterly ( *?) ;
did it extend up the hill as far as the Morrison hotel ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and no
foundation laid.
A. He says I will describe just how much I know
about this place; he says Mrs. Dickinson's place, you
know where Mr. Odell's place is — it runs up to
Mr. Odell's place, not any further than Mr. Odell's
building now, and up this way to the north the width,
yon know where Mr. Eipin's store, it runs up to there,
and the other way it runs up to the corner of that big
building that stands on the corner of the street.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 321
(Testimony of Joe Kajikan.)
Q. Does it extend, or did it extend up the hill —
ask Mm if he knows where the U. S. Post office build-
ings at Haines? A. Yes, sir, he knows.
Q. Did it extend up the hill west as far as the U. S.
Postoffice? A. No.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever improve or claim any
other part of the to\^Ti of Haines than the portion he
has just described ?
Defendant objects to the word "claim" as it is not
shown the witness understands what you mean by the
word claim ; and for the further reason that this wit-
ness is incompetent to testify what Mrs. Dickinson
claimed; and further object to the question because
two questions are embraced in the one, the question as
to whether she improved land being one question and
the question as to what she claimed is another.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation mth Mrs.
Dickinson or her father concerning how much land
she claimed in Haines ?
Objected to for the reason that no time is fixed.
Q. We withdraw the question. Did you ever have
any conversation with Mrs. Dickinson or her father
before the defendant Ripinski went to Haines, con-
cerning what land she claimed to own or her father
claimed to own ?
Objected to on the ground that the word ''claim"
as used, without any further explanation as to what
it means, is unintelligible to the witness, and is using
a general legal term to a child of the forest.
A. No, sir.
322 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
[Testimony of Paddy Gu-Nate, for the Plaintiffs.]
PADDY GU-NATE, a mtive, bein^ called to tes-
tify on behalf of the plaintiffs and first duly sworn
through said interpreter, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— What is your name?
A. Paddy.
Q. Where do you live ? A. Haines.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines *?
A. It's a long time now.
Q. (By Mr. JENNINGS.)— Don't you speak
English, Paddy'? (No answer.) You speak good
English, don't you, Paddy? (No ans.) Give him a
dollar, Sol., and he'll talk quick enough — what are
you smiling about, Paddy ?
By Mr. LYONS.— I see Sol, is right there with the
dollar — do you know Solomon Ripinski, the defend-
ant in this case ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him ?
A. I have known him for a long time.
Q. Do you know Billy Dickinson ?
A. Yes, sir, a long time.
Q. Did you know Sarah Dickinson in her life-
time ? A. Yes, sir, I knew her.
Q. How long have you known her ?
A. When her mother lived in that place she came
there every once in a while.
Q. How long have you known Mrs. Dickinson?
A. I have known her for a long time.
Q. Were you in Haines when Mr. Ripinski came
there to Haines? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 32^
(Testimony of Padd}^ Gu-Nate.)
Q. Was Mrs. Dickinson living in Haines at that
time, or did she have any property in Haines ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where — what part of Haines did she have
property in ?
A. The natives used to have a trail ri^ht through
that place there and she lived on this side of that trail
— a small trail it used to be.
Q. How far from the beach!
A. It isn't very far from the high-water mark.
Q. How much ground did she have down there ?
Defendant objects to the use of the indefinite term
' ' how much ground did she have. ' '
Q. Withdraw the question. How much ground
did she improve down there ?
A. There is a piece of ground there she had
cleared out ; that is the only way we can understand —
that she cleared a piece of ground that belonged to her.
Q. Do you know where the U. S. Postoffice at
Haines is ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did the ground that she cleared extend as far
up the hill in a westerly direction as the postoffice ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Not any further than the postoffice — a little
below.
Q. It didn't extend as far as the postoffice then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How large a piece of ground had she cleared
before Solomon Ripinski went to Haines'?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
324 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimoriy of Paddy Gu-Nate.)
A. It wasn 't very large the ground tliat she cleared
around her house; we can see the bushes piled up
right there.
Q. Did she have any fence around the ground that
she cleared around her house ?
Defendant objects to the question as irrelevant and
immaterial.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever clear any other
ground except what he has just described, in the town
of Haines ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and be-
cause it assumes the witness knows whether she did or
not.
A. No, sir ; just around her house.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson about her holdings — her land, in Haines "?
A. No, sir.
Recess until 1:30 this date. (P. M.)
1:30 P.M., July 8th.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Lyons, I have a ^dtness
here who wants to get awa}^ on this boat, and if you
have no objection I will call him out of his regular
turn, and have him give his testimony now.
By Mr. LYONS. — We have no objection.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 825
[Testimony of Joseph Carl, for the Defendant.]
Whereupon JOSEPH CAEL, a witness called to
testify on belialf of the defendant, and being first
duly sworn, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What is your name?
A. Joseph Carl.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Carl ?
A. Sixty-six.
Q. What is your occupation ?
A. Fisherman.
Q. Where do you reside ? A. At Chilkat.
Q. How far is that from Haines ?
A. About as near as I can judge, it is three or four
luiles.
Q. Did you reside there, — or where did you reside,
and what was your occupation in the latter part of
1897?
A. I was a fisherman and watchman at the can-
aery — Murray 's cannery.
Q. Do you remember when an expedition came up
into those waters around Chilkat and Pyramid Har-
bor called the Perry-Humbert Expedition %
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. That was in the winter of 1897, was it not?
A. I think it was.
Q. A short time after that expedition came up
there, did you have occasion to go over by the old trail
there that lead out from Haines Mission?
A. No, I came back that way ; I went up along the
beach there after some horses for Jack Dalton and
326 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
I got the horses and came out that trail from the
Mission — it was drier than bringing them back by the
beach at high tide.
Q. Did you at that time observe a fence along that
old trail ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose fence was that —
A. It was supposed to be —
Plaintiffs object to any testimony concerning the
ownership of that fence unless the witness knows who
owned it — his suppositions we object to.
Q. Whose fence was that 1
A. As near as I know it was supposed to be Mr.
Ripinski 's.
Q. Commonly known as the Ripinski fence ?
Objected to as not the proper method of proving
the ownership of anything.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of a fence was that ?
A. A wire fence.
Q. How mam^ wires ?
A. I think two — I'm not sure, but I think two; I
know^ I run the horses into it to catch them.
Q. And the horses didn't run over it until you
got up to them?
A. Yes, sir ; it held them all right.
Q. That, as I understand you, was along the old
trail?
A. Yes, sir, along the trail I was coming through.
Q. Now, Joe, I call your attention to a map that
is in evidence here, called Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1,
and I call your attention to the ground here marked
G. W. Hinchm'an et al. 327
(Testimony of Joseph Caii.)
"Mission," and also to these sectional subdivisions
to the north of it, supposed to represent Haines.
The last house is about at this point where you see
this covered space in Lot 6 Block 5, that's the last
house that's there now. Now, about where with ref-
erence to that last house on that trail was it that you
run the horses up against that fence ?
A. I couldn 't say now ; it was after I crossed the
small creek where the sa^Tnill was, over here, that I
came to a stop there at that fence and caught my
horses.
Q. About how far was it from the beach?
A. Well, I couldn't exactly say that, it was so
many years ago, but as near as I could point it out
now it was between where that sawmill was and where
Mr. Vogel took up his corner there.
Q. Well, that is away down here?
A. Yes, sir, between them two places that I run
the horses in — they seen the fence and stopped —
where I tried to catch them, right in there somewhere,
but the exact point I can't give it.
Q. Did that fence you saw there go as far down
as Vogel 's ?
A. Yes, a little further, I think; he wasn't built
there at the time, of course.
Q. Went from where, you say — from where you
saw it up at the sawmill down as far as Vogel's?
A. As near as I remember, past Vogel 's.
Q. And it was a two-wired fence ?
A. Yes, sir, I'm sure of that because one wire
wouldn't hold the horses.
328 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. And whose fence was that commonly reputed
to be — •
Objected to as not the proper method of proving
the ownership of anything ; and it is not shown there
was anybody there at Haines to have or to constitute
common knowledge.
By Mr. JENNINGS . — I propose to supplement
this testimony ; it is necessary that I call him out of
his turn, Mr. Lyons.
By Mr. LYONS. — I don't object to his testifying
out of his turn, but we object to this witness testify-
ing to ' ' common knowledge ' ' when it is evident from
his testimony there was no one at Haines to have any
such a thing.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — You say it was commonly
reputed as Sol. Ripinski's fence, Mr. Carl?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you know an Indian woman named
Mrs. Sarah Dickinson ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. She lived over at Chilkat '?
A. Yes, sir, lived at Chilkat and lived at Haines.
Q. Did you — were you present when a deal was
made between Mrs. Dickinson and Sol. with reference
to some land over there at Chilkat — at Haines ?
A. Yes, sir, I was in his store when the agree-
ment was made.
Q. Can you fix the date of that occurrence ?
A. It was sometime in December, I couldn't say.-
Q. Of 1897?
A. Yes, sir, as near as I can get at it; I couldn't
G. W. Hmchman et al. 329
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
fix the date because it is impossible for a man to think
of a day eleven or twelve years ago.
Q. Was anything said at that time that you re-
member, as to how much land she w^as conveying to
Sol., or how^ much she claimed?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial— if the deed is any good at all it will describe
what was conveyed.
A. It was supposed she sold all she ow^ned over
there to Haines at the time, I don't know what it was;
she sold part of it before ; I was witness to a deed she
sold an acre to Mrs. Dalton.
Plaintiffs' counsel moves to strike the answer of
the witness as being a mere supposition and not a
statement of fact.
Q. That was the understanding that you gathered
from what was —
Objected to as asking for the witness' understand-
ing and not a statement of fact.
Q. Do you know as a matter of fact what she did
own or claim over there ? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, when was it with reference to the time,
that you saw this fence you have testified about ?
A. It was sometime after that.
Q. How long after you don't undertake to say?
A. No, I couldn't say ; I think it was pretty near,
might have been, let's see — no I couldn't say exactly
how long it w^as after that time now.
Q. At the time you saw that fence there was
anyone living on that tract ? A. No, sir.
330 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. Except — were there any buildings on that
tract except those down on the beach ?
A. No buildings on there outside of the Mission
property, except Mr. Eipinski's and Mrs. Dickin-
son's.
Q. There were, then, buildings outside the Mis-
sion property, belonging to Mrs. Dickinson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do ,you know a man by the name of Harry
Fay? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was he there at the time ?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Was there any tent that you saw at that time
on this tract ? A. No, sir.
Q. Any location or settlement there?
A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — What did you say jout name
was? A. Joseph Carl.
Q. You're a fisherman by trade, are you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were you fishing in 1897?
A. Fishing, generally in Chilkat and around,
and sometimes I would be — at one time I was watch-
man at the cannery — in the summer-time I would fish
and in the winter-time be watchman and everything
about the cannery.
Q. You're a particular friend of Mr. Eipinski,
are you?
A. I am a friend of everybody if he is a man; I
am a friend of his, yes.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 331
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. You have to find out whether he is a man
though before you are friendly — is that it?
A. No, I don't want to have to find out whether
he is a man ; I will take him as a man until I find out
something different.
Q. Where did you find this fence you speak
about ?
A. On this trail, where I was coming through
there.
Q. I believe you stated there were two wires on
that fence because you thought one wire wouldn't
hold the horses ? A. I think so.
Q. I'm not asking what ,you think, sir; just wait
a moment until I put the question; wdiat you think,
sir, isn't material in this cause — what you know may
be. I ask you now if 3^ou know how many wires
there were on that fence %
A. I couldn't say that I know how many it was,
wouldn 't undertake to after twelve or thirteen years ;
I don't know exactly, but as near as I can remember
now there was two.
Q. How far did you follow that fence at the
time?
A. All the way down, clear to the beach.
Q. How many white people were there in Haines
at that time?
A. There was no people there only — but the Mis-
sionary, and a few down on the beach, Mr. Rip-
inski —
Q. And yet you state that it was common knowl-
332 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
edge in that community that that was Mr. Ripinski's
fence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. If there were no people there, ho^Y could a
fact of that kind gain common knowledge, sir, or
how could it be considered common knowledge that
that was Ripinski's fence when there was nobody to
know anything about it?
A. There was a few people over at Chilkat; there
wasn't very many people in the country at that time,
and when one man knew anything we all knew it.
Q. Who told you that it was Ripinski's fence?
A. I couldn't say whether there was one man,
or two or more there at Haines at the time, — white
men.
Q. I ask the witness to respond to my question?
A. What was the question?
Q. I say can you name a single man that told
you that was Ripinski's fence?
A. I couldn't do it now; no.
Q. And you swear that it was common knowl-
edge in the community there that that was Sol. Rip-
inski's fence?
A. I don't ever believe anyone told me, but we
were all down around the A. P. A. there, we knew it.
Q. There wasn't a soul that told you that was
Ripinski's fence, and yet you swear that everj^body
in the community at Chilkat knew it?
A. Yes, sir, I'll own up to that point.
Q. Now, you said it was "supposed" Mrs. Dick-
inson conveyed her parcel of land there at Haines
to Mr. Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 333
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. How mucli land did she actually occupy
down there? A. I couldn't tell you.
Q. You have been all through that vicinit}^
down there?
A. Yes, sir, for the last twenty years I have.
Q. How much land did she have cleared in the
vicinity of her house at Haines?
A. Well, as near as I could say she had a little
piece of land, I never measured it; she sold that, as
near as I can say, or nearly all of it — or some of it
at least to Mrs. Dalton.
Q. Then she had no other land cleared except
what she sold to Mrs. Dalton, is that your under-
standing ?
A. I couldn't say — I don't remember of any.
Q. Her house was down here close to the beach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit No. 1, and particularly to that portion called
"Ripinski Homestead"; now, it was in the vicinity,
or within that square there marked Ripinski Home-
stead where Mrs. Dickinson had her house, was it
not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, will you state about what part of that,
where her house was at that time?
A. Well, I couldn't say — if you will point out
where the old trail comes through there —
Q. This is it, where Main Street is?
A. This then is the piece Mrs. Dalton bought.
Q. Yes.
334 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
A. Well, she had one right here where this store
is, somewhere here right near the trail.
Mr. LYONS. — Witness points to the easterly ex-
tremity of the parcel of land marked ''Ripinski
Homestead" on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.
Q. Now, where had she done any clearing around
that house ?
A. Whether I took notice in going through that
trail — of course I never took much notice, but it was
right in here on Mrs. Dalton's ground.
Q. To the south then, of what is designated as
the Ripinski Homestead?
A. Yes, sir, that way is to the south.
Q. And how far was it from her house where
the clearing was done?
A. Well, not very far; I couldn't tell.
Q. About how many feet?
A. I couldn't measure that. Maybe 150, 200, or
300 feet.
Q. Not to exceed three hundred feet from her
house? A. Yes, sir; I could exactly say.
Q. You don't know who built that fence, do you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know whether it was done by the
Presbyterian Mission people or not, do you?
A. I don't know anything about aid.
Q. You never saw Solomon Ripinski out there
swinging a hammer, did you, and building that
fence? A. No, sir.
Q. And you never saw anyone out there that pre-
tended to be building fence for Ripinski?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 335
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
A. No, sir, I didn't see anyone building; I found
it there and that's all I know about it.
Q. You were residing with a native woman at
Haines about that time, were you not?
A. No, sir, I was not.
Q. Aren't you pretty chummy with a native wo-
man who is a relative of Mrs. Dickinson'?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know her at all, I suppose?
A. No, sir, I never had only one woman there
and I kept her one winter, and I hope to God I'll
never keep another one. I had her seven months and
in seven more I would have been in a lunatic asylum;
but that was long afterwards, though.
Q. Now, seriously, Mr. Carl, you don't know
whose fence that was, who built it?
A. No, I say I don't.
Q. You don't know whether the Presbyterian
Mission people built it, or the Perry-Humbert Ex-
pedition, or who?
A. Maybe President Roosevelt built it, or Abe
Lincoln, for all I know^
Q. You say you are reasonably friendly with
Sol. Ripinski?
A. I am friendly to everyone — no more to Rip-
inski than I am to you.
Q. Mr. Ripinski has been your bondsman a time
or two, hasn't he, Mr. Carl?
A. He never went bonds for me, because I never
wanted a bond.
336 Solomon Ripinski/ vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. Mrs. Dickinson, so far as you know, never
cleared one foot cf land on the tract where Haines
is located now?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not
proper cross-examination.
A. I never seen her clear any land at all.
Q. There was no clearing, as a matter of fact, on
what is now the town of Haines, until Mr. Fay went
there 1
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I don't remember of any.
Q. Do you remember the time Mr. Fay went
there 1
A. I remember the time, about, yes, sir.
Q. When Mr. Fay went there, as a matter of fact
this whole tract where Haines is now v\^as covered
vrith timber, wasn't it?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not
proper cross-examination.
A. Timber and brush, and just like any other
new country.
Q. And there was no part of that land enclosed
by anyone, with a fence?
Objected to — he has testified — well, he did testify
about the fence.
Q. The fence didn't enclose any of it so far as
you know?
A. The fence ? All I know, sir, is that I run my
horses into it —
No. 1782
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
(In 3 Volumes.)
SOLOMON RIPINSKY.
Appellant,
VS.
G. W. HINCHMAN. WILLIAM HOLGATE. JOHN G. MORRI-
SON. J. A. NETTLES. CORTEZ FORD, TOM VALEUR. R.
M. ODELL. D. BUTRICH. E. J. BERGER. IDA JOHNSON.
M. E. HANDY. FRED HANDY. G. C. DE HAVEN. TIM
CREEDON, BENJAMIN A. MAHAN. THOMAS DRYDEN.
ED. FAY. JAMES FAY, H. FAY. W. W.WARNE. THOMAS
VOGEL. C. BJORNSTAD. H. RAPPOLT, KAREN BJORN-
STAD, M. V. McINTOSH. MARY V. McINTOSH. JESSE
CRAIG. E. A. ADAMS. J. W. MARTIN. A. J. DENNER-
LINE, S. J. WEITZMAN. PETER JOHNSON, MRS. KATE
KABLER. and V. READE.
Appellees.
VOLUME II.
(Pages 337 to 640, Inclusive.)
Upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska, Division No. 1.
I I I,.,— \m0m \^
■1 1910
FiLMER Bros. Co. Print, 330 Jackson St., S. F., Cal.
No. 1782
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
(In 3 Volumes.)
SOLOMON RIPINSKY,
Appellant,
VS.
G. W. HINCHMAN, WILLIAM HOLGATE, JOHN G. MORRI-
SON. J. A. NETTLES, CORTEZ FORD. TOM VALEUR. R.
M. ODELL. D. BUTRICH. E. J. BERGER. IDA JOHNSON.
M. E. HANDY. FRED HANDY. G. C. DE HAVEN. TIM
CREEDON. BENJAMIN A. MAHAN. THOMAS DRYDEN.
ED. FAY. JAMES FAY. H. FAY. W. W.WARNE, THOMAS
VOGEL. C. BJORNSTAD. H. RAPPOLT. KAREN BJORN-
STAD. M. V. McINTOSH, MARY V. McINTOSH. JESSE
CRAIG. E. A. ADAMS. J. W. MARTIN. A. J. DENNER-
LINE, S. J. WEITZMAN, PETER JOHNSON. MRS. KATE
KABLER. and V. READE.
Appellees.
VOLUME II.
(Pages 337 to 640, Inclusive.)
Upon Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska, Division No. 1.
FiLMBR Bros. Co. Print, 330 Jackson St., S. F., Cal.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 3o7
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Q. You have testified now what 3^011 know — I am
trying to find out what you don't know'?
A. I don't want to know an}^ more about it.
Q. You say that fence was along to the south
side of Main Street, or what was the trail?
A. No, the north side.
Q. You don't know how far it extended?
A. I knew it commenced somewhere where the
creek was near the mill.
Q. And you don't know whether any land was
inclosed by it or surrounded that tract — 3^ou never
saw any other side of it, did you?
A. I never went over it hunting to see an3^thing.
Q. And there was absolutely no evidence of pos^
session or occupation of the land on which the town
of Haines is now situated when you went there?
Objected to as too general, and asking the opinion
of the witness on a point of law, asking him if there
was any evidence of possession without explaining
to him what would constitute evidence.
A. There was no one there on that part of the
ground when I was there, not one house. The first
house there was built by Mr. Spooner and I was
right there when he was putting it up and that was
the Northern Hotel — that's the first house built
there outside of the house of Mrs. Dickinson.
Q. In fact, all west of the Ripinski and Dickin-
son tract where that house was, was all wilderness,
wasn't it?
A. It was a wilderness, yes, commonly speaking.
338 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
Redirect Examination.
(By Mr. JENNINGS.)
Q. Now, Mr. Carl, you started to say you saw
some clearing of Mrs. Dickinson's on the Dalton
acre, but you didn't know how far back it ran; you
don't know whether she had land cleared and used
as a garden on this Ripinski Homestead, — all you
testified to is just what you saw in passing?
A. All I saw, yes, sir.
Q. And you saw some land cleared on the Dal-
ton acre?
A. All I testify to at all is what I saw and ac-
tually know; I am only telling it as near as I can get
to just what I know, and I don't want to say anj^-
thing more than I know.
Q. You say you were a fisherman and watch-
man; I'll ask you if you didn't occasionally do some
work for Jack Dalton? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were working for him at that time?
A. Yes, sir, he asked me to bring over the mules;
I was at that time working as watchman at the Mur-
ray cannery, and he asked me to take a day off and
fetch over the mules.
Q. Do you know whereabouts on this plat — I call
your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 — where
that old sawmill was, or the swamp, or ravine — ^creek
there? A. Awa}- to the farther end of it.
Q. Away to the westerly end?
A. Yes, sir, to the west end.
Q. To about the extreme end of this map?
G. W. Hincliman et al. 339
(Testimony of Joseph Carl.)
A. About the extreme end' — I can't just tell
where from this.
Q. And you sa^Y the fence all the way down from
there to Vogel's place'?
A. Yes, sir, a little further, if anything.
Recross-examination.
.By Mr. LYONS. — You never saw a fence any-
where else down there, did you'?
A. I didn't take any notice.
[Testimony of Tom Phillips, for the Plaintiffs.]
TOM PHILLIPS, a native called to testify on
behalf of the plaintiffs, and being through the said
interpreter first duly sworn, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— AVhat's your name?
A. Tom.
Q. Tom what? A. Tom Phillips.
Q. Where do you live? A. Haines.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines?
A. I lived in Haines a long time.
Q. Do you know Solomon Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. A long time now.
Q. Were you living at Haines before Ripinski
went to Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Billy Dickinson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you know his mother, Mrs. Sarah Dick-
inson? A. Yes, sir.
340 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Tom Phillips.)
Q. Do you know where Mrs. Dickinson lived in
Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiffs^ Ex-
hibit No. 1, and I call your attention particularly to
what is designated on that plat as Ripinski Home-
stead, and I indicate to you the boundaries of what
is called on this map the "Ripinski Homestead."
The homestead is immediately west of the postoffice
and the Morrison building, between the Morrison
hotel, or U. S. Postoffice and the bay. Now, I'll
ask you if that's the same ground that Mrs. Dickin-
son lived on when she was in Haines?
A. The ground runs up a little below the post-
office — little below.
Q. Did it extend up as high on the hill as any
buildings that are now occupied by white people
along to the west of this Ripinski tract — did Mrs.
Dickinson's land extend westerly so as to include
any of the land that is now marked by shaded spaces
indicating buildings on Block No. 1?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant ahd not
binding on the defendant, and is not the proper way
to prove where a person's land lies or what he
claims.
A. His answer is that her place, her ground,
don't run up to the place where the houses is; down
below that.
Q. How much land did Mrs. Dickinson clear
there?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 341
(Testimony of Tom Phillips.)
A. Not very large; she cleared her garden, that's
all.
Q. Ask him if he knows about how large a space
or tract was included in her garden "?
A. There is a house on the ground; her house
used to be there, and there is a place not very big
around the house up the hill and up this way to the
north, not very long — that's all she has.
Q. Is that the same ground that Mr. Ripinski
now occupies in Haines %
Objected to, unless counsel explains to the witness
that the word ''occupy" means — the legal signifi-
cance of it.
Q. Question withdrawn. Is that the same place
as Mr. Ripinski lives on at this time, and has his
store on — is that the same land Mrs. Dickinson had?
A. Yes, sir, that's the same place.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever improve or clear
any other part of the land now embraced within the
town of Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you in Haines when Mrs. Dickinson sold
her holdings there to Ripinski? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — Ask him if he ever had any
conversation with Mrs. Dickinson about any other
part of the land she owned at Haines except this
little piece the house where she lives in and the
garden around it is — ask him if he ever heard her
342 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tom Phillips.)
say anything about lan}^ other part of the town of
Haines? The land at Haines'? A. No, sir.
Q. Never heard her say anything. Then when
he speaks of the little house and the garden around
it, that's 'all he knows, is it not — that's what he
means when he says her land didn't extend up as
far as the postoffice? Ask him if he means simply
that that part cleared, the little garden tract, didn't
extend up that far?
A. He says, "I w^on't add anything more to it.
I am talking about her ground, how far it run up the
hill and her little garden. ' '
Q. How far her little garden. ran up the hill?
Ask him if that's what he means.
A. Yes, sir, that's just what I'm talking about;
there is no garden she owns beside that garden —
that's all we're talking about now.
Q. That little garden is what he is talking about?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's what he means when he says her land
didn't go up as far as the postoffice?
A. Yes, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Did Mrs. Dickinson ever clear
or improve or fence any other land in the vicinity
of Haines except the garden you have described?
A. Except the garden we are talking about? No,
sir.
Q. Nothing else? A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever shoAv 3^ou the prem-
ises she claimed in Haines?
G. W. Hinchman et at. 343
(Testimony of Shorty Jackson.)
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant unless
the time is fixed.
Q. I'll ask him the date later. Put the question,
Jackson? A. No, sir.
[Testimony of Shorty Jackson, for the Plaintiffs.]
SHORTY JACKSON, a native, being called as a
witness on behalf of the plaintiffs and first duly
sworn through said interpreter, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— What is 3^our name %
A. Shorty Jackson.
Q. Where do you live %
A. Haines Mission; stopping at Haines all the
time.
Q. Do you know Solomon Ripinski, the defendant
in this action ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How" long have you know^n him ?
A. I have known him not very long ago.
Q. Were you in Haines when Ripinski first went
there ? A. Yes, sir,
Q. Did you know — or do you know one Billy
Dickinson ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did 3"0u know his mother, Mrs. Sarah Dickin-
son in her lifetime %
A. Yes ; I have know^n her a long time before.
Q. Where did Mrs. Dickinson live in Haines f
A. He says I am traveling around all the time
right there in Haines and every once in a while I
come to her house.
Q. Well, w^here was her house in Haines?
344 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimon}^ of Shorty Jackson.)
A. He says it lias kind of mixed me up.
Q. Well, I will withdraw that question, and put
it in a more definite form. Did Mrs. Dickinson live
farther away from the beach at Haines than the U. S.
Postoffice, or did she live b-etween the beach and the
postoffice ?
A. It was quite a wa,ys down from the postoffice,
where Mrs. Dickinson's house is.
Q. That is, .you say quite a ways doAvn It was
nearer to the beach than to the U. S. Postoffice, is it?
A. It is pretty close to the beach ; not very far.
Q. Did the tract of land that Mrs. Dickinson had
cleared there extend as far up the hill in a westerly
direction as the postoffice?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Her ground runs up below the postoffice.
Q. What did Mrs. Dickinson do towards appro-
priating the land there or towards improving it?
Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.
A. She does not — she didn't do no clearing her
ground except that little garden.
Q. Did she ever clear any other part of the
ground on which is now situate the town of Haines ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, there was no other place besides.
Q. Did she ever improve in any way or in any
manner any other portion of the ground on which is
situate the town of Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she ever fence any other part of the town
of Haines ? A. No, sir.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 345
[Testimony of Chief George, for the Plaintiffs.]
CHIEF GEORGE, a native, witness called on be-
half of the plaintiffs, and being first duly sworn
through said interpreter, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— What is your name?
A. Chief George ; that's my name.
Q. Where do you reside? A. Haines.
Q. How long have you lived in Haines?
A. A long time now.
Q. Do you know Solomon Eipinsld, the defend J^^t
in this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you knowm him?
A. I have known him since he lived over on the
Chilkat side ; not very long ago when he moved over
to Haines Mission.
Q. Did you know Sarah Dickinson in her lifetime,
the mother of Billy Dickinson ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you know her?
A. I have known her, but I don't keep track of
how long ago I have known her. I have known her
since when I am a young man, and now I am an old
man.
Q. Did you know her before Ripinski first went
to Haines — made his first visit to Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any ground or any store or
building she occupied at Haines?
A. I know that she had a store there and a piece
of ground from the first time.
346 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Chief George.)
Q. Where did she have that store and ground ?
A. Right there where the old Indian trail is, on
the front side, the end of the Indian road.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Ripinski lives now in
Haines, where he has his store % A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the same ground Ripinski occupied be-
fore— or the same ground Mrs. Dickinson occupied
before Ripinski went to Haines 1
A. That's the same ground.
Q. What did Mrs. Dickinson do with the land im-
mediately around her house, around close around her
store ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. She sold the house and the ground to Ripinski.
Defendant moves to strike the answer as not re-
sponsive to the question.
We don't resist the motion. What improvements
did Mrs, Dickinson make around her house, what did
she do there %
A. She hired Peter Brown to do some little clear-
ing on her ground for a piece of garden..
Q. Did Peter Brown clear it for her ?
A. Yes, sir, he cleared it for her.
Q. How big a piece of ground did he clear for
her — how large ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. You know where the store is, and a log house,
and on the back side of the house, not very far from
the house.
Q. Did the clearing Peter Bro^vn did for her ex-
tend westerly and up the hill from the store and house
as far as the U. S. Postoffice is now?
G. W. Hincliman et at. 347
(Testimony of Chief George.)
A, The postoffice jow people are talking about is
where Mrs. Dickinson's ground didn't run that far;
it run up below the postoffice,
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson concerning the amount of land she 0T\Taed
or claimed in Haines ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson have cleared any other
land in Haines excepting the tract you have just de-
scribed ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir, I only knew that piece of ground she
had around her house.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I would like the record to
show that this man CTiief George is an Indian, and all
of the witnesses the plaintiffs have called and ex-
amined since the witness Peter Brown and including
the witness Peter Brown, are Indians.
[Testimony of Isaac Dennis, for the Plaintiffs.]
ISAAC DENNIS, a native, being called on behalf
of the plaintiffs and first duly sworn through said
interpreter, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— What's your name?
A. Isaac Dennis.
Q. Where do you live? A. Mission.
Q. Haines Mission % A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. I have lived there all the time; that is my
place.
348 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Isaac Dennis.)
Q. Do you know Solomon Eipinski, the defend-
ant in this case ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have .you known him ?
A. I have known him a long time.
Q. Did you know Sarah Dickinson in her life-
time? A. I knew her.
Q. Do you know what property or what land she
owned in Haines ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did she occupy any property in
Haines ?
A. There was a trail through from Chilkat side
right through that bushes to where Haines Mission
is now; there was a trail there by people, and this
side of the trail that's the place where Mrs. Dickinson
stops ; that's her house there and ground.
Q. Do you know where Sol. Eipinski has a store
and lives now in Haines ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the same ground that Mrs. Dickinson
owTied and cleared in Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What improvements did Mrs. Dickinson make
on her ground at Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. She put a garden around her house.
Q. Did she clear an^^ land up as far as the post-
office — as far westerl^^ as the postoffice is now ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. No, sir, she cleared a piece of ground below
the postoffice.
Q. How large a piece of ground did she clear ?
G. W. HincUmmi et al. 349
(Testimony of Anna Jackson.)
A. I never knew I would be put on the witness-
stand about that piece of ground, so I don't look over
it to tell how large that ground is; that's all I say,
that that ground was below the postoffice.
Q. Did Mrs. Dickinson ever improve or clear any
other part of the ground on which the town of Haines
is now located ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
[Testimony of Anna Jackson, for the Plaintiffs.]
ANNA JACKSON, a native, being first duly sworn,
testified on behalf of the plaintiffs as follows, on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Where do you reside, Mrs.
Jackson? A. Haines Mission.
Q. How long have you resided there'?
A. Not a very long time ago.
Q. Did you know Mrs. Sarah Dickinson in her
lifetime ? A. Yes, sir, I know her.
Q. Do you know where she lived and had a store
in Haines ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where w^as it with reference to the beach — or
where was it wdth reference to where the U. S. Post-
office is now, nearer the beach than where the post-
office is?
A. Her ground runs up below the postoffice.
Q. Did she own the same ground that Mr. Rip-
inski now owns and lives on in Haines ?
A. Yes, sir.
o50 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Anna Jackson.)
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson as to the boundaries of her land or as to
how much land she claimed there?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, indefinite
and not binding on the defendant.
A. Yes, she had a little talk with me about her
ground.
Q. When and where did you have that conversa-
tion with Mrs. Dickinson?
, A. Over on the Chilkat side.
Q. Ask her when that conversation was had?
A. After she sold her property.
Q. After she sold her property to whom?
A. To Ripinski.
Q. Now, state what that conversation was?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, not binding
on the defendant, and being a declaration of Mrs.
Dickinson after a conveyance to Mr. Eipinski.
A. She says when I came from Sitka and I was
with her at that time, and she began to talk to me
about her place, her properly. She told me she had
sold her property to Ripinski.
Q. Did she describe the property or say how
much she sold?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not bind-
ing on the defendant.
A. She says that she described that she got a
hundred dollars for her place.
Q. Did she give any description of the bound-
aries of that property she sold?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 351
(Testimony of Anna Jackson.)
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and not
binding on the defendant Eipinski.
A. This is the way she talked to me when we
was talking about her place —
Q. I asked, did the woman Mrs. Dickinson tell
her how much land she sold to Eipinski, or describe
it to her in any way?
Objected to for the same reason as above.
A. Yes, she told me she sold her garden around
her house; there was some stumps and bushes piled
right in line like a fence around her ground there;
that's the place she sold to Eipinski.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Did she say that was all she
sold to Eipinski — just the garden? (Question with-
drawn.) Did she say she had sold her property to
Eipinski, or her garden to Eipinski?
A. Yes, sir, she told me she had sold her house
and piece of garden, the house and the ground
around the house.
Q. Did she say her property or her garden —
ask her that question again?
A. She says she sold her house and garden, and
fruit and everything that was in the garden, the
house and the ground and the garden.
Q. All her property, everything she had over
there?
A. She used to have two houses there, one —
Q. No, but did Mrs. Dickinson tell her she had
sold to Eipinski everything she had over there, all
the land?
352 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Burnliam.)
A. She didn't have any more property besides
her house and —
Q. No, never mind what this witness says she
had — but did Mrs. Dickinson tell her she sold to Sol.
everything she had over there ? ^
A. Yes, sir, she told me she sold her house and
her ground.
Q. And all she had? A. Yes, sir.
[Testimony of J. Yv. Burnham, for the Plaintiffs.]
J. W. BUENHAM, a witness called on behalf of
the plaintiflLS, being first duh^ sworn, testified as fol-
lows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Burnham, where do jou re-
side?
A. Well, between Rainy Hollow, Skagway and
Haines.
Q. How long have you resided in this section?
A. Since the spring of 1898.
Q. Did you ever know one Sarah Dickinson, of
Haines?
A. I knew Mrs. Dickinson; I don't know whether
her name was Sarah or not.
Q. Do you know whether or not she is the same
woman that convej'ed some property in Haines to
Ripinski? A. I know.
Q. Was she the same woman?
A. Yes, sir, the same woman.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with her
with reference to what property she sold to Itipin-
#5ki? A. I did.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 353
(Testimony of J. W. Burnham.)
Q. When did you have that conversation, Mr.
Burnham ?
A. Just previous to the first time this contest
came up, she told me she was going —
Defendant objects, if he is going on now to state
what Mrs. Dickinson said.
— I'm just trying to fix the date. She told me
she had to go to Juneau.
Q. Was that in 1898^
A. I don't know; don't think I would state it was
in '98.
Q. You saw her in Haines, did you"?
A. No, at Chilkat, at her cabin.
Q. Now, what did she say with reference to
where the premises lay that she conveyed to Ripin-
ski?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I would like to ask a few
preliminary questions. This conversation that Mr.
Lyons has asked you about was after she had sold
the property to Ripinski*?
A. I suppose it was; yes.
Q. That is, after the sale?
A. Just previous to the time there was some kind
of a suit down there at Juneau, and she was getting
ready to go to Juneau.
Q. You knew she was getting ready to go; so it
must have been near that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was after she sold to Ripinski?
A. I suppose it was, because we were talking
about '-what property she had sold; I didn't know
anything about it, just happened into her cabin and
354 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Burnham.)
she spoke about it — she may have been just selling
it.
Q. Wasn't it after — weren't you talking to her
about what property she had sold'? Or was it what
she was going to sell?
A. What had been sold, I supposed.
Q. Don't you know you were talking about some-
thing that had already happened'?
A. Well, there was a contest and I supposed it
had been sold; yes.
Q. Then you say it had been sold?
A. I suppose so.
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incom-
petent and not binding on Mr. Ripinski, the defend-
ant, at all because it occurred after the transfer of
the premises to Ripinski.
By Mr. LYONS.— Go ahead, and state the cir-
cumstances, Mr. Burnham.
A. I was spending the winter at Chilkat, killing
time, waiting for spring to open up, and I was in
the habit of taking a walk and I used to drop in
and write letters for her occasionally. So I dropped
in there just before this contest they were having
and during the conversation she says: "I have got
to go to Juneau right away." I says: ''What for?"
"Oh," she says, "there is some trouble over the land
I sold to Sol. Ripinski." Of course, I didn't know
anything about any land she had sold at that time.
Well, we got to talking about it and I asked her
what she sold, and what all the trouble was about.
"Oh, about the land I sold him," she says. "Well,"
G. W. Hinchman et al. 355
(Testimony of J. W. Burnliam.)
I says, "what did you sell Mm'?" She says: "Some
land I used to own down there at Haines," and then
she told me it ran down to the beach, and she said —
started in by saying: "My husband came here to
run this store for the Northwest Trading Company,
and as there was no Indians at that time I didn't
pay anything and they gave it up; and my husband
then claimed the building and continued to run the
store in his own name for himself." And she says:
"After while the Indians commenced to come there
again and settle," and camped on her land down on
the beach and they conunenced to build cabins and
they kept building on her husband's place and he
was glad to have them come there for their trade.
So they kept on building until they got nearly to
the store and one day there was a fellow getting
ready to build close to the store and her husband
went out and told him if they kept on building
around there they would have all of his land and
he shouldn't build there. I afterwards got to talk-
ing with her about it and where her land laid, and
she says, "It ran right around there where my
garden is." During the conversation she said she
had a little child die and she buried it up back of
her house there but not on her land. She further
told me: "My husband was going to take up some
more land so that if anything happened to him I
would have something to leave to my children,
and he went below and died before he did it."
356 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— She said that her garden-
pointed right around the house, I suppose, to the
garden and fence and said that was the land her
husband claimed?
A. Yes, sir, it was somewhere near where the
hotel is now.
[Testimony of J. W. Martin, for the Plaintiffs.]
J. W. MARTIN, a witness called on behalf of the
plaintiffs, being first duly sworn testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — You're a resident of Haines,
Mr. Martin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are one of the plaintiffs in this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know Solomon Eipinski, th€ defendant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you resided in Haines?
A. Since 1897.
Q. What time in the year 1897 did you go there?
A. The spring and summer of '97, April or May,
Q. Well, now, was it 1897 or 1898?
A. Well, I think it was 1897 or 1898—1 think
it was 1897, though.
Q. Was it before the influx of people to Skagway
and the "rush" to Dawson?
A. It was during that time.
Q. Do you know where the United States Post-
office is in the town of Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now call your attention to Plaintiff's Ex-
G. W. H inch man et al. 357
(Testimon.y of J. W. Martin.)
hibit No. 1, which is a plat showing the exterior
boundaries of the alleged homestead of the defend-
ant in this action, with the exterior boundary lines
thereof shaded in yellow. The tract marked "Rip-
inski Homestead" is conceded to be the place where
Mr. Ripinski now has his store, and a shaded space
indicating a building on the southeast corner of
Block No. 1 is conceded to be the Morrison house.
Now, where is the U. S. Postoffice with reference to
the Morrison Hotel?
A. It is between the Morrison Hotel and the bay.
Q. Then it is easterly of the Morrison Hotel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you own any land within the disputed
premises in this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you own Mr. Martin?
A. This lot marked here —
Q. How is it marked?
A. It is shaded there, similar to the Morrison
Hotel.
Q. Parcel No. 6, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Block No. 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you own any other parcel of land on the
disputed tract?
A. Yes, sir, this parcel here marked twentj'-five,
I believe.
Q. No, it is marked No. 9, is it not?
A. Oh, yes, sir, I see it is.
Q. Who owns the parcel in Block 1 marked
No. 7?
358 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not the
proper way to prove ownership.
A. Mr. Mahan, I believe.
Q. Who occupies it? A. Mr. Mahan.
Q. How did you acquire possession of parcel
No. 6? A. I bought it from Mr. Lane.
Q. When?
A. I can't say exactly, but about 1901, I think.
Q. Have you done any improving* on that lot
since you purchased it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What improvements have you put on it?
A. I put up a building there, 25x60
Q. What was the approximate cost of that build-
ing? A. The one on Parcel No. 6?
Q. Yes, what was the approximate cost of that
building? A. About three thousand dollars.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski, the defendant in this ac-
tion, ever make any protest against your improving
that lot?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Not, that I have any recollection of.
Q. He lived in Haines during all of that time,
did he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And knew you were constructing that build-
ing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And never claimed the premises on which
your building is now constructed? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you own any other lots in Haines?
A. Not excepting those two.
Q. You owned both of those lots at the date of
the commencement of this action, did you?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 359
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. What do you call the date of the action'?
Q. July 2d, 1906 <? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you still own them?
A. Yes, sir; now, I hadn't finished^ — you were
speaking about improvements; I also have a house
on the other Parcel No. 9, a dwelling-house on there.
Q. When did jou construct that?
A. Just recently, within the last sixty or ninety
days.
Q. You are familiar with the town of Haines
are jow not, Mr. Martin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What portion of the town of Haines, both
residential and business, is included and embraced
within the exterior boundaries of the alleged home-
stead of the defendant?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. That includes this whole strip here?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, I would say it includes everything of
value at the present time.
Q. In the town of Haines. Now, are you able to
give an estim^ate of the expenditures that have been
made in clearing and improving and building all of
the structures — are you able to give an estimate of
the expenditures necessitated by the clearing of the
land, leveling it off, and constructing all of the
buildings that are situate now on this tract ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What would you say it was approximately?
360 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. Well, I should say between seventy-five and a
hundred thousand dollars.
Q. You are familiar with the streets laid out in
the town of Haines are you, Mr. Martin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are familiar with what is styled on this
Exhibit No. 1 as Main Street? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that street used by the people of the town
of Haines as a public thoroughfare ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Both by pedestrians and by teams'?
A. Yes, sir, it is the main thoroughfare of the
town — has been ever since the town has been a
town.
Q. What can 3'ou say about Second Avenue?
Same objection.
A. Well, it is the same; it is one of the main
thoroughfares of the town.
Q. And used by the public of the town of Haines
as a thoroughfare?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Third Avenue?
A. Well, it isn't used so much as the other two.
Q. Is it used at all by the people of the town of
Haines as a thoroughfare?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about Fourth Avenue?
A. It is opened, and used as a thoroughfare.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 361
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Same objection, and move to strike on the same
ground.
Q. How about Fifth Avenue?
A. I'm not able to say whether it is open or not.
Q. How about Sixth Avenue?
Same objection.
A. The avenue is laid out — I can't say whether
it is used a great deal or not.
Q. The settlement of Haines — is the settlement
of Haines laid out as a town?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir, this plat here is a very good repre-
sentation of it.
Q. That is, Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 is a good
representation of the town of Haines, or the con-
tested portion of it, is it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you known the defendant
Solomon Ripinski?
A. Ever since 1897 or 1898.
Q. He has been a resident of Haines, has he?
A. Yes, sir, Haines and Chilkat.
Q. Has been doing business in Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he never, during all that time made any
protest against your improving the lots you now
own, or made any claim to the land on which these
structures of your are located?
A. Well, he objected at the time I put up this
store building here 30x60' on Parcel No. 6 you have
it marked; he objected to me running over on his
Q
62 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
ground — just let me show joii what I mean by that;
you see Ripinski claims this lot here —
Q. Not Parcel No. 6?
A. Parcel No. 5, by purchase.
Q. Parcel No. 5 in Block No. 1?
A. Yes, sir, and he put a claim that my building
was running onto his lot in here —
Q. That is, that it was overlapping on his own
parcel marked "Sol. Ripinski" — parcel No. 6?
A. Yes, sir, that's the objection he raised.
Q. And that's the only protest he ever made?
A. That's the only one I recall.
Q. He didn't pretend to claim Parcel No. 6, the
land you occupied? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Martin, is your mem-
ory pretty good?
A. At times — I think so.
Q. And you want to state now, sir, that Sol. Ripin-
ski never did protest to 3^ou against putting up any
building or improvement on any of that land, ex-
cept the little protest he made about your building
on Lot No. 6 and overlapping the land claimed by
him — do you mean to say he never made any pro-
test to you excejjt the protest on account of the house
you were building on Parcel 6, Block 1, lapping over
on to this piece marked Sol. Ripinski?
A. Not to my recollection.
Q. You're sure of that?
A. I didn't say I was sure — I said not to my
recollection.
G. W. HmcJiman et al. 363
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Q. Well, you would have recollected it if it had
ever happened, wouldn't you?
A. I might and I might not.
Q. Then you don't know whether your recollec-
tion about that matter is very good or not?
A. I don't think that he did.
Q. If you're mistaken about that — if your recol-
lection about that point isn't reliable, it is liable to
be bad about the other things you have testified to
in this case, isn't it? A. Not necessarily.
Q. I say it is liable to be — not necessarily — but
liable to be, isn't it?
A. Well, I will repeat the answer I made before.
Q. Did 3^ou do any building there in the year
1903?
A. I don't know exactly what year I put up that
building I speak of there — ^between 1901 and 1903.
Q. Did you — do you mean to say you put up
those buildings there in total ignorance of any
claims of Sol. Ripinski?
A. I knew he laid claim to it ; he claims the whole
country there for miles around, the land and the
whole works.
Q. For miles around — you're honest in that an-
swer, are you?
A. Yes, sir, as I have heard; he claims a moun-
tain up there five miles away and has gone so far
as to name it after himself.
Q. He named it after himself?
A. I believe so.
Q. The people around there call it Mt. Ripinski?
364 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. I believe so.
Q. You call it that, don't youf A. No, sir.
Q. What do you call it?
A. I have never called it anything.
Q. So you have some feeling in this matter,
haven't you, Mr. Martin, against Ripinski?
A. Well, very little.
Q. So little, in fact, that you don't want to desig-
nate a mountain, or belittle a mountain with his
name; is that true*?
A. Yes, sir, that's the fact of the case.
Q. No; you wouldn't even let Sol. Ripinski have
the credit of naming that mountain after himself,
would jou'^.
A. I haven't tried to take the credit away from
him.
Q. But you're not going to join in with the rest
of the people and call it Mt, Ripinski, are you*?
A. Not yet, no.
Q. Simply, because it is Ripinski; you haven't
any objection to the name, have you — your objection
is to the man that bears the name, isn't it?
A. I'm not particularly stuck on the name,
either. I think the name would suit better in Rus-
sia than in America.
Q. You think it would? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How would you like to call it Mount Weitz-
man?
Objected to as immaterial and not cross-examina-
tion.
Q. Or Mount Martin?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 365
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Objected to as immaterial and not cross-examina-
tion.
Q. Mount Martin, I suppose, would suit you.
Now, Mr. Martin, I hand you a registered letter
receipt marked Haines, Alaska — first I'll have that
marked for identification Defendant's Exhibit No. 5.
(So marked.) I now call your attention to the
signature on that register return receipt "J. W.
Martin," and ask you if that is your signature.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just look at the other side of it. Now, I'll
ask you if you didn't receive a registered letter con-
taining a notice, of which this is a copy — ^this paper
I now ask the stenographer to mark Defendant's
Exhibit No. 6 (so marked) the original, of which
that is a copy ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if that registry receipt I just handed you
wasn't tlie receipt for that letter?
A. I presume it was — I think so. And I would
like to ask you what piece of ground that covers —
that notice to stop building?
Q. I'm not on the witness-stand, Mr. Martin — I
asked you, sir, if you ever received any protest from
Sol. Ripinski about building on these lots and setting
up his claim to them and you said you hadn't —
I'll ask you now if that don't refresh your memory
a little, these two exhibits I just handed you?
A. I remember the exliibits.
Q. Then it does refresh you memory?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did receive such a notice from him?
366 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Martin, when did you go to Haines *?
A. In 1897 or '98.
Q. Which was it, 1897 or 1898?
A. You decide for yourself; I have told you.
Q. No, 3'OU decide — which was it?
A. It was in 1897 or 1898; that's as near as I can
tell you.
Q. Was it before or after Mr. Fay came there?
A. It was after.
Q. What did you do when you first went to
Haines ?
A. Went to work for Kohler & James.
Q. Whereabouts? A. Chilkat.
Q. I asked 3'ou w^hat did you first do when you
went to Haines, not Chilkat ?
A. I think I started a store there, me and Fay.
Q. You and Fay were partners, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whereabouts in Haines did you start a store ?
A. On this parcel marked No. 4, on Exhibit No. 1.
Q. Were you with Mr. Fay when you got onto the
Dalton tract of land and Dalton made you move, and
you then moved onto parcel No. 4 ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and not
yjroper cross-examination.
A. I don't know anything about any moving; we
never moved after we started up there.
Q. Didn't you pitch a tent or start a store on
Dalton 's acre and then move up farther?
A. No, sir.
G. W. Hinchmmi et al. 367
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Q. That's not true'? A. No, sir; I did not.
Q. Well, did you and Mr. Fay go there together ?
A. To Haines together?
Q. Yes.
A. I run the store and he was in the store at Chil-
kat.
Q. You run the store at Haines in partnership
with Mr. Fay ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And weren't you working for Kohler & James
at the time ? A. No, sir.
Q. What kind of a store did you have — a house
or a tent? A. We had a house.
Q. How long was that after Mr. Fay went there
first? A. Well, I don't know exactly.
Q. Give us your best estimate?
A. I don't know just how long Fay had been
there before I came to the country.
Q. Did you buy a half interest in that lot with
Mr. Fay? A. No, sir.
Q. It was Mr. Fay's lot? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He put that in the partnership and you con-
ducted the partnership business on Fay's individual
lot, did 3^ou? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you can't locate the time, how long that
was after Fay located the lot — can't fix it in your
mind?
A. I don't know, because I don't know when he
located the lot; Fay owned the lot before I came to
the country.
Q. Don't you know what year you came to the
country in, whether it was in 1897 or 1898 ?
368 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. It was 1897 or 1898.
Q. You can 't fix it any closer than that — the year
you came to Alaska? A. No, sir.
Q. AYhen did you build the house you claim to
own now on Parcel No. 6, Block 1?
A. Between 1901 and 1903.
Q. You knew at the time you built it that Sol.
Eipinski claimed that land, didn't youf
A. Why, I guess probablj^ I did.
Q. AYhen did 3'ou build the other house on lot, on
Parcel 9, in Block 1?
A. That was built this summer.
Q. Built it just this last sunnner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The summer of 1907? A. Yes, sir.
Q. After you had received this registered letter
we just introduced in evidence or had the sten-
ographer identify?
A. The date of your letter ought to answer that.
Q. So you won't answer that question in any
other wa}' than by telling me that the letter will an-
swer ?
Objected to on the ground that the letter is the
best evidence.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I asked Mm whether it was
before or after he received that letter that he began
to build.
By Mr. LYONS. — And he has answered when he
did the building, and the letter will indicate as to
when it was received.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 369
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Did you build that house
before or after you received this letter?
A. I have answered 3"ou.
Q. You won't answer it any further — is that it"?
A. I don't think it's necessary.
Q. You know, don't you, that you're not the
judge of what is necessary in this case ? Do you re-
fuse to answer the question?
A. Let's hear it again.
Q. Did you build that house before or after you
received this letter? A. It was after.
Q. Now, Mr. Martin, you haven't built a house at
Haines without knowledge of Sol. Eipinski's claim
to that land, have you?
A. AYhich claim do you refer to?
Q. I refer to Mr. Eipinski's claim of ownership
to that land as having bought the same from Mrs.
Dickinson ?
A. Well, the only knowledge I have ever had of
his claim was the claim he himself put forth ; I never
had any other evidence of it.
Q. You knew^ it was disputed property, didn't
you, w^hen you put 3'our house there ? A. Yes.
Q. You're a merchant there at Haines?
A. Yes.
Q. You and Witzman and Fay are the three lead-
ing merchants at Haines, aren't you, the "old-
timers," the three oldest merchants there, in point
of time? A. There is others there.
Q. Well, 3^ou're about the three oldest in point of
time, aren't you, Mr. Martin?
370 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A, Yes, I guess we are.
Q. And how much loss to you in dollars and cents
would it mean if Sol. Ripinski should win this law-
suit ?
A. It won't cost me very much, because I don't
figure he will ever win it during my lifetime.
Q. Well, that's quite funny — it excites the risibles
of the rest of your company here, but it don't answer
the question.
A. Well, I will add a little to that.
Q. Answer the question?
A. Well, tire ahead.
Q. How much does it represent to you as an in-
vestment, 3^our property, there at Haines ?
A. Oh, probably twelve or fifteen thousand dol-
lars.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — In estimating your damage,
you include your business as well as the real estate
do you, Mr. Martin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Referring to this notice you received from
Mr. Jennings, did that describe any parcel of ground
whatever? A. No, sir.
Q. It wasn 't signed by Mr. Ripinski, was it ?
A. Not that I remember of.
Q. Do you know whether it was signed by any-
body that you yourself knew had any authority to
act for Mr. Ripinski and sign his name in that be-
half?
A. No, I think not; it was signed by Jennings.
G. W. Hhichman et al. 371
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
Q. Mr. Kipinski lived right there during all of
the time you were residing there, and did business
right there in Haines during all the time 3^ou were
building? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he took the method of notifying you by
sending a message through the mails by his alleged
attorney and without describing any premises what-
ever? A. Yes, sir.
Q. By merelj^ telling you not to build any struct-
ures in the town of Haines ? A. Yes, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You were building at the
time you got that letter, weren't you?
A. I don't remember.
[Testimony of Tim Creeden, for the Plaintiffs.]
TIM CREEDEN, a witness called on behalf of
the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — ^Mr. Creeden, you reside in
Haines? A. Yes, sir; I reside there now.
Q. How long have 3'Ou resided in Haines?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Off and on since 1895.
Do you know Solomon Ripinski?
Yes, sir.
How long have you known him?
Since '95.
Where did you first get acquainted with him?
Chilkat.
Did you know him when he first came to
Haines? A. Yes, sir.
372 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. Now, are you familiar, or were you familiar
with the property owned in Haines by one Sarah
Dickinson? A. Why, yes; I think so.
Q. Prior to the time Mr. Eipinski made his ad-
vent to Haines? A. Yes.
Q. You're familiar ^dth the premises now oc-
cupied by Mr. Ripinski at Haines, are you not ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How large a tract of ground was occupied or
cleared by Mrs. Dickinson?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Oh, I should judge about an acre of ground;
I'm no surveyor, and I didn't go clear around it.
Q. How far did it extend westerly from the beach
with reference to the present location of the Morrison
Hotel?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I thought it extended up to the Morrison
Hotel — around there somewhere.
Q. What can you say as to whether or not it is
practically coincident with the premises now oc-
cupied by Mr. Ripinski?
Objected to as leading.
Q. Question withdrawn. You're familiar with
the premises now occupied by Ripinski —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were the premises situated that Mrs.
Dickinson occupied, with reference to the premises
now occupied by Ripinski?
G. TT. HincJiman et ah 373
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and mis-
leading, confusing, and using terms to the witness
without explaining what the}' mean.
A. The same place.
Q. How much clearing, if you know, was done by
Mrs. Dickinson? A. Something like an acre.
Q. You say you went there first in 1895, to
Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know the condition, the physical condi-
tion of the country, or the ground rather, on which
is now situated the tov^n of Haines ? What its phy-
sical condition was, as to whether or nut it was tim-
bered or cleared?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. It was timbered.
Q. Was there any indication of clearing or im-
provement of the ground west of the tract that was
occupied by Mrs. Dickinson at that time?
A. No, sir; no imxDrovements ; it was all timbered.
Q. Virgin forest, was it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do 3'ou know when Solomon first arrived in
Haines ?
A. I believe it was about the spring of *98 he
came to Haines.
Q. He inunediately began in business there, did
he?
A. Why, yes, he began business in the spring of
1898, some time, I think it was.
Q. And do you know whether or not he purchased
any ground from Mrs. Dickinson?
374 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
A. I understood lie purchased some ground in
the fall of 1897 from Mrs. Dickinson.
Q. Since that date, has Mr. Eipinski ever cleared
or improved or in any way subjected to his will any
property or land in Haines other than the tract that
was owned b}^ Mrs. Dickinson?
Objected to as innnaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir; he never did any improving that I
know of.
Q. When did 3^ou first acquire any land in the
town of Haines, if at all?
A. In the winter of 1897, sir.
Q. Where, Mr. Creeden ?
A. Well, in part of the townsite of Haines at the
present time.
Q. I call your attention now to Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit No. 1, and also to that particular portion which
is enclosed with a line shaded in yellow which is con-
ceded to be the tract in controversy, in this suit.
And I ask you if j^ou are familiar with the premises
represented on that map?
A. I am familiar with the ground, but I haven't
seen many maps — I have never seen a map of the
townsite.
Q. I will call 3' our attention to the southeast cor-
ner here, which is Mr. Morrison's Hotel — are 3^0 li
familiar with Main Street along there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Familiar with Second Avenue ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With Third Avenue? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 375
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. With Fourtli Avenue? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With Fifth Avenue? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With Sixth Avenue? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is the settlement of Haines platted as a town-
site?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant to any
issue in this case.
A. That's the way I understand it ; yes.
Q. The streets and avenues that are indicated on
this plat are used by the people of Haines, are they —
A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as inmiaterial and irrelevant.
Q. — are used by the people of Haines as public
thoroughfares, are they? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ripinski or anybody else have never
sought to subject any of those thoroughfares to his
will? A. No, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and lead-
ing.
Q. What premises do you occupy now, Mr.
Creeden, in the town of Haines?
A. I occupj^ part of Lot 7 in Block 1 — this is
Block 1, and is Lot 7, isn't it?
Q. No, that's Lot No. 1.
A. Well, Morrison's Hotel is back here, this one?
Q. That is a lot marked on this map Parcel 17 in
Block 1 ? A. Well, we call it Lot seven.
Q. You see it marked on this plat No. 17?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who owns that lot?
A. Me and Mr. De Haven.
Q
76 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. How long have you owned if?
A. Since February, 1899, sir.
Q. Do you know the size of that lot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it correctly indicated on this plat — fifty by —
do you know wiiat the size of those lots are ?
A. Yes, sir ; these lots are fifty by a hundred and
forty.
Q. Is that the length of all the regular lots of
Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And fifty feet in width 1
A. Fifty feet wide, yes, sir ; and I also own some
ground out here.
Q. Where? A. In this Block No. 6.
Q. What lot in Block No. 6?
A. Lots one and two.
Q. How long have you owned them?
A. Well, I took them up first in 1897.
Q. They are marked on this map, Lot No. 1 is
marked Joe Stubbier, isn't it? A. Yes.
Q. And No. 2 is marked A. J. Dennerline?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How does it come they are marked that way?
A, I have had a house there, and it burned down
some four or five j^ears ago, and they have taken
them up since ; I claimxcd them, and now I have pur-
chased them from them.
Q. And you actuall}^ own those two lots now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What improvements have you made on them ?
A. I have built two houses on them.
G. W. Hmchman et al. 377
(Testii*nony of Tim Crceden.)
Q. When? A. This spring.
Q. You had a house on them years ago, you say %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On which one was that?
A. On Lot No. 1.
Q. Have you ever had them under fence?
A. Yes, sir; partl}^ fenced in the front.
Q. They are correctly indicated on this map as
being fifty by a hundred and forty feet, are they?
A. Yes, sir ; that is, I think they are.
Q. You will notice it gives the length of the lot
within the disputed tract, not outside of it?
A. Oh, I thought all of these lots wxre in the dis-
puted tract; I didn't know.
Q. But they are 140 feet long, are they ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all of the regular lots of Haines are a hun-
dred and forty feet long?
A. That's what I understand they measure, 140
feet.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
Ripinski about your property in the town of Haines?
A. Not as I remember, sir.
Q. Did he ever make any protest against you
building on your lots there ?
A. I believe he did, in 1899.
Q. What was his protest then?
A. He claimed it to be on his ground — I didn't
happen to be there, my partner was on the ground.
Q. Which lot was that?
A. Lot No. 17 in Block 1.
378 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. Did he ever make any protest to you or claim
to you that the lot was his'? A. No, sir.
Q. Did he ever question your rights to improve
the other lots you say you repurchased?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have improved those two lots, since you
repurchased them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He never laid any claim to the premises?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mrs.
Dickinson as to what premises she owned in the
settlement of Haines or at Haines Mission?
A. No, sir.
Q. You say that the premises she in any way im-
proved or cleared are the same premises now con-
ceded by the people of Haines to be the premises of
Solomon Ripinski ?
A. That was all improved by her.
Q. She never improved any other portion of the
town of Haines ? A. No, sir.
Q. Were there an}^ fences around that property
when you first went there? A. No, sir.
Q. You were there in 1895 ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you there frequently after 1895?
A. I was there in '96 and '97.
Q. Were you in the room when one Carl testified
for the defendant in this case?
A. No, sir; I wasn't here.
Q. When you went there in 1895, was there any
fence along Main Street or along the trail which led
G. W. Hinchman et al. 379
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
from Haines or from the beacli at Haines in a west-
erly direction towards Chilkat? A. No, sir.
Q. There was no wdre fence there % A. No.
Q. You were over that trail frequently, were you
from Chilkat to Haines ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you're sure there was no wire fence along
there'? A. I know there was not.
Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Carl?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't hear his testimony to-day?
A. No, sir.
Q. How frequently w^ere you in Haines between
the years 1895 and 1897 — those two dates?
A. Well, I have been over there in '95 several
times, and also in 1905 every day for a couple of
months.
Q. You said you first went there in 1895?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, how often were you there between 1895
and 1897 when the defendant came there — w^hen Ei]3-
inski came there?
A. I have been there every year.
Q. How often every year — how often would you
be there?
A. For a couple of months in the year there.
Q. Eight there at Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Camped there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the summer months?
A. Yes, sir; I camped there in '95, I think, for
five or six weeks, and in 1906 I camped there about
three months, and in 1907 —
380 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. I'm speaking about the nineties, not after
1900— I'm speaking about 1895, 1896 and 1897, you
were there during those three summers ?
A. Part of the time, not all siunmer.
Q, Were you frequently over this ground, that
is, on which the townsite of Haines is located ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Were you frequentl.y over the trail that is
now called Main Street of the town of Haines*?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. What do you say as to whether or not there
were any fences in that vicinity any^^here?
A. There was a little bit of fence on the beach
w^here the Lindsay Hotel is now, but it was knocked
down; it run up to pretty near Morrison's Hotel
where there was a garden at one time — hasn't been
any garden there for several years.
Q. That was the extent of the fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the Lindsay Hotel is westerly from the
Morrison Hotel, is if?
A. No, it is east, down the beach near the wharf.
Q. And you say there was a fence extending
from the place where the Lindsay Hotel is now sit-
uated up to the Morrison Hotel ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it extend on Main Street any farther than
the Morrison Hotel? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Carl around Haines
during the years of 1895 and 1896 ?
A. Yes, I met him in 1906 and 1907.
Q. I am talking about 1805 and 1896.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 381
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
A. Well, I mean 1896—
Q. And in 1895? A. Yes, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Creeden, you say in
1895 and '96 and '97 you were around there quite
often and there was no fence except the little fence
you have testified about? A. That was all.
Q. Extended from the Lindsay Hotel to about
the Morrison Hotel?
A. Yes, sir, and that had fallen down.
Q. Well, now, where did .you go in 1897; when —
what time in 1895 did you leave Haines?
A. I left Haines in 1897 the 20th of June.
Q. When did you come back?
A. I went back in December, 1897.
Q. Well, then, where did you go?
A. I came here to Skagway, and put part of the
time in here.
Q. How much time did you put in here?
A. About two or three months.
Q. Then, in the winter of 1897 you left Haines,
didn't you? A. Yes.
Q. And you came to Skagway? A. Yes.
Q. And didn't return to Haines for two or three
months afterwards?
A. No, two months; stayed in Skagway about
two months.
Q. And prior to the time you left Haines in the
winter of 1897 there was no fence of any kind on
this tract except the fence you have mentioned?
A. Yes, sir.
382 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of Tim Creeden.)
Q. And 3^ou swear to that? A. I do, sir.
Q. And you had plent}^ of opj^ortunity to ^ee it
if it had been on that tract '^ A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you swear there was no other fence
there? A. I do, sir.
Q. There wasn't any fence built by the Mission
people or anybod}^ else at Haines, was there?
A. I don't say fence by the Mission people, but
not on this ground here.
Q. Xct where the trail was there?
A. On one side of the trail was the Mission
fence.
Q. Then there was a fence there?
A. There was the Mission fence, yes, sir.
Q. There was a fence inclosing, running right up
this trail, wasn't there?
A. There was on one side of it; yes, sir.
Q. What kind of a fence was that?
A. Well, it was wire strung along part way —
Q. How far out the trail from the beach did it
go — up the trail did it extend?
A. I don't know just how far it did go.
Q. Did it go up as far as the old sawmill?
A. Somewhere around there, I believe.
Q. How many wires on that fence, do you know?
A. I don't know; no.
Q. Mr. Creeden, when 3'ou went to build a house
you say on Lot 7 now marked Lot No. 17, Sol.
Ripinski complained to you that you were on his
ground ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 383
(Testimony of Tim Creeclen.)
A. I understand so — I wasn't there at the time;
my partner said he claimed that.
Q. He complained to your partner then*?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was he? A. Mr. De Haven.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — You say there was a fence there
built by the Mission people*? A. There was.
Q. On the southerly side of Main Street *?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that built there before Mr. Ripinski
came to Haines or afterwards?
A. I don't know w^hen Ripinski first came there
— it was built before 1895.
Q. Did you ever hear am^one claim in that vicin-
ity that Sol. Ripinski built that fence?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear anyone say, Ripinski or
anybody else, that he owned that fence?
A. No, sir, the Mission ground owned it — he
don't claim it himself, that fence.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with Mrs.
Sarah Dickinson with reference to the tract of land
she owned? What she claimed there at Haines?
A. No, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I understand now, Mr.
Creeden. that 3^ou left Haines in the winter of 1897
and never returned until the spring of 1898, did you?
A. I left there in the winter of 1897 and stayed
about two months in Skagwa}^
384 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testunony of G. C. De Haven.)
Q. And never returned until the first part of the
spring or last part of the winter of 1898?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know what happened in Haines
during that time?
A. No, I was away about two months.
[Testimony of Or. C. De Haven, for the Plaintiffs.]
G. C. De HAVEN, a witness called on behalf of the
plaintiffs, and being first duly sworn, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. De Haven, where do you
reside? A. In Haines.
Q. When did you first go to Haines?
A. In the spring of 1898.
Q. Do 3"ou know Solomon Ripinski?
A. I do.
Q. Have you resided in Haines all the time since
you went there?
A. Well, every winter since that; in the smmner
time I have been up in the Porcupine mining district.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1 which is a map and plat of the disputed por-
tion of the town of Haines, and I'll ask you if you
are familiar Avith the town of Haines as represented
by that plat? A. Yes, sir, I think so.
Q. Do you own any property in Haines?
A. I own half a lot in Block 1, Lot No. 7— Mr.
Creeden and I own it.
Q. Is this the lot?
A. This is the one right here.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 385
(Testimony of G. C. De Haven.)
Q. Marked Parcel 17 in Block 1 on Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 1 — when did you first take possession of
that tract?
A. We put up a house in the spring of 1899,
along about the first of February.
Q. Was Solomon Rlpinski there then?
A. He was in Haines I believe; I don't know\
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with him
with reference to that tract of land ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he ever make any protest against you
building there ?
A. Not himself; there was other parties that
came there and claimed he ow^ned it.
Q. Who were the other parties if you know?
A. Old man Grygla claimed so — he was sent
there from Washington to decide that thing he said
and we better get off there and stay off.
Q. But Mr. Ripinski never made any protest to
you himself?
A. He never said anj^thing to me at all.
Q. And he has been living in the vicinity of your
ground, abutting on your ground, for the past seven
or eight years?
A. Yes, he lived just below us about three hun-
dred feet.
Q. He could have seen you from his premises
when you were constructing 3^our building ?
A. There was woods between us then.
Q. Is there woods there now?
386 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. C. De Haven.)
A. There is brush as high as this ceiling growed
up.
Q. Has he ever laid any claim to that tract to
you, Ripinski himself?
A. I don't remember of him saying a word to me
himself individually.
Q. What other parcel of land do you own in
Haines ?
A. Nothing in the disputed tract.
Q. You say you went to Haines in —
A. The spring of 1898.
Q. What was the physical condition of this dis-
puted tract at that time as to whether or not it was
cleared or timbered"?
A. It wasn't cleared at all.
Q. Covered with timber, was if?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some people had moved on there and taken
up lots at that time, had theyf
A. Yes, sir, Mr. Spooner was there, and Fay and
Vogel — that's the only ones when I first went there.
Q. What portion of the town of Haines, both
residential and business, is included within the dis-
puted tracf?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, it is principally all included in that tract
that amounts to anything — that is, the business part
of the town is all in that.
Q. How much expenditure have you made on
the lot which you and Mr. Creeden own"?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 387
(Testimony of G. C. De Haven.)
A. What—
Q. That is now, the cost of clearing and also the
cost of the construction of that building'?
A. Oh, five or six hundred dollars.
Q. Are you able to give an estimate of the ap-
proximate expenditures necessitated in the clearing
and grading of this disputed tract, and the construc-
tion of the buildings that are now situated thereon'?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, I should think a hundred and twenty-
five thousand dollars would be a fair estimate.
Q. You and Mr. Creeden own that lot now'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have owned it at all times since 1898 and
occupied it?
A. Yes, sir, lived there continuously every win-
ter since then.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What is your name'?
A. Cal De Haven.
Q. Cal De Haven or Carl Wilson'?
A. De Haven, sir.
Q. Aren't you called Carl Wilson also"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, sir, you have got an alias, haven't you"?
A. No, sir; that's merely a nickname, that's all.
Q. You and Tim Creeden are partners?
A. We are in that lot, yes.
Q. What's your occupation?
A. I have been mining in the Porcupine until
388 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. C. De Haven.)
last year I had a Government wood contract, Mr,
Hincliman and I.
Q. You and Hincliman were partners ?
A. Were in that contract, yes, sir; since that time
I have been working on my own hook.
Q. Are you a married man, Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes, sir — De Haven, if you please, sir.
Q. Very well, if you prefer — isn't it a fact, sir,
that when you built that house you jumped that lot,
and you knew you were jumping it, and not only
Mr. Grygla went out there and told you to stop but
that Sol. Ripinski and his brother went out there
and told you also?
A. I don't remember Mr. Ripinski coming up
there at all.
Q. Are you willing to swear that he didn't come
up there and protest to you about jumping that lot?
A. I don't remember him coming up there at all.
Q. Do you remember his brother coming up
there? A. No, I believe Brie came up there.
Q. Who is Brie?
A. He is a saloon-keeper there.
Q. A kinsman of Ripinski 's, isn't he?
A. I believe so.
Q. Well, then. Brie came up and —
A. Yes, sir, and Mrs. Brie too —
Q. And she is a kinsman of Ripinski, lives right
next to him?
A. I think so — I don't know anything about
them being kinsmen.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 389
(Testimony of G. C. De Haven.)
Q. It is generally understood in that community
tlie}^ are? A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. And you knew when they came there and told
you that Sol. Ripinski claimed that lot, it wasn't
some interloper?
A. I considered they were up there running kind
of a "whizzer" on me, was the way I looked at it.
Q. And you knew it came from Sol. Ripinski too,
didn't you? A. Yes, certainly I did.
Q. And you say Sol. Ripinski himself never came
up there?
A. I don't remember him coming on the premises
at all.
Q. Do you swear he didn't?
A. Oh, no, I won't swear he didn't, but I cer-
tainly don't remember of him.
Q. You remember his brother coming up there,
don't you? A. I don't remember him, either.
Q. Called Mr. Ripin, don't you remember him
coming and telling you?
A. I don't remember of him coming up there at
all, sir.
Q. You won't say he didn't?
A. I won't swear he didn't.
Q. He might have come up there and protested to
you that was Sol.'s land?
A. I don't remember of him coming there at all.
Q. I want to know, will you swear he didn't come
up there and tell you that was Sol.'s land?
A. I won't swear he didn't because I wasn't
there all the time.
390 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimonj^ of G. C. Be Haven.)
Q. I mean when you were there "?
A. I don't remember of it.
Q. Will you swear he did not? Answer that
3^es or no.
A. I swear I don't remember if he did.
Q. I mean come to you and protest to you — you,
personall)^"?
A. No, he never came to me at all.
Q. Then you swear he didn't come and tell you
that?
A. I don't swear anything about it; I say I don't
remember.
Q. If he ever came up there and protested to
you, you would remember it, wouldn't you?
A. I think so.
Q. And now, will you swear he didn't come and
protest to you?
A. I won't swear anything about it, because I
don't remember of it.
[Testimony of Carl Bjornstad, for the Plaintiffs.]
CARL BJORNSTAD, a witness called on behalf
of the plaintiffs and first duly sworn, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— You're one of the plaintiffs in
this action, are you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You reside in Haines? A. I do.
Q. How long have you lived there?
A. Since 1899.
Q. Are you acquainted with Solomon Ripinski,
the defendant in this case? A. I am.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 391
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. Do you own any ground on the disputed tract
in this case, at Haines'?
A. I have, but not now.
Q. You don't own any now*? A. No.
Q. To w^hom did you convey your interest?
A. To Holgate and Hinclinian.
Q. What ground did you convey — did you ow^n
any ground within the disputed tract at the date of
the conmiencement of this action, July 2d, 1906'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What ground did you owm there — can you
point it out on Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1%
A. That there. Parcel 6 in Block 3.
Q. You say you sold that to whom?
A. Mr. Morris, Frank Morris.
Q. Does he own it now'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you convey it to him?
A. A short time ago.
Q. You owned it at the date of the commence-
ment of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you any improvements on it at that date ?
A. No, I had not.
Q. Had 3'OU fenced it? A. No, sir.
Q. Are there any improvements on it now^?
A. It is cleared now, and a ditch dug on it.
Q. I call your attention to Parcels 12, 13 and 14
in Block 2 marked "Karen Bjornstad" — is that your
mother? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That parcel down there belongs to your
mother?
A. Yes, sir, and also Parcel 5 in Block 3.
392 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. She owns those four parcels still, does she?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she own them at the time of the com-
mencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you her agent in taking care of them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What size are those lots?
A. Fifty by a hundred and forty.
Q. Is that the regular size of all the lots in the
disputed tract? A. It is as far as I know.
Q. What improvements were made by yourself
or your mother on those four parcels or tracts?
A. Why WT bought it from Mrs. Cambell, it is
one house on it.
Q. Describe so the stenographer can get it in the
record now, where that house w^as.
A. It was on the first lot, Lot No. 7, the house
was.
Q. It is marked No. 14 on this plat?
A. Yes, sir; and the three lots were all in one
and it was cultivated as a garden.
Q. When did you acquire possession of it, all
that tract embraced in those four parcels?
A. In 1902, I think — I have got it here (produc-
ing deed) — yes, the 15th day of March, 1902.
Q. Has your mother done any improving of
those lots since she acquired possession of them?
A. Yes.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. What umprovements ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 393
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
A. She built another fence on Lot No. 14 and had
the block all fenced off.
Q. The three lots in Block No. 2?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she build any structures there?
A. That one house there, and built a house on
the other lot.
Q. That is, on Lot 5 in B,lock 3?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did she build that?
A. She built that in 1899, she bought it at that
time.
Q. And she owns those four lots at the present
time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And has fenced them and improved them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Solomon Ripinski?
A. I do.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. Since 1899.
Q. Your mother is also one of the plaintiffs in
this action? A. I expect she is.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever make any protest to
you against your building on or improving those lots
you have described as belonging to your mother?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Never made any protest to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. And never made any claim to the land em-
braced within the exterior boundaries of these four
lots you have described as your mother's?
394 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he ever make any protest against your
claim to Lot No. 9 in Block 3, the one yon say you
sold? A. No, sir.
Q. You improved that and cleared it, did you?
A. I didn't clear it, no, sir; I bought it from an-
other party and just let it lay there.
Q. You're familiar with the town of Haines are
you not, Mr. Bjornstad?
A. Somewhat, yes, sir.
Q. You know the streets and alleys?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And avenues? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the thoroughfare on this Plain-
tiffs' Exhibit No. 1 represented as Main Street?
A. I do.
Q. Is that used as a thoroughfare b}^ the people
of the town of Haines? A. It is.
Q. How about Second Avenue?
A. It is also used as a street.
Q. Used by the people of the town of Haines as
a thoroughfare? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is Third Avenue used by the people of the
town of Haines as a street and thoroughfare ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Fourth Avenue?
A. That's used some, too.
Q. By the people of the town of Haines as a
thoroughfare? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Fifth Avenue?
A. That's used —
G. W. HincJiman et al. 395
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. — by the people of the town of Haines as a
thoroughfare? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sixth Avenue ■?
A. That's used — no obstruction there that I
know of.
Q. And that's used by the people of the town of
Haines as a thoroughfare? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the population of the town of
Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I should think a hundred and fifty to two
hundred inhabitants there.
Q. You have reference to white people?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what proportion of that hundred and
fifty to two hundred white inhabitants reside or do
business, carry on any kind of business on this dis-
puted tract?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. The biggest part of the population.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What is your name?
A. My name is Carl Bjornstad.
Q. How do you spell it?
A. B-j-o-r-n-s-t-a-d.
Q. What is your nationality?
A. Norwegian.
Q. How long have you been in this country?
A. Since 1882.
Q. When did you first come to Haines?
A. In 1899.
396 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. Did you take up any lots there*?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why*?
A. I didn't have time to locate — didn't figure on
town lots.
Q. What were you figuring on?
A. Mining and prospecting.
Q. How long did you stay around Haines?
A. Have stayed there ever since.
Q. When did you first acquire any property in
Haines?
A. I acquired it I expect in about 1903 or about
1902 it was.
Q. Then you were at Haines from 1899 to 1902
without getting hold of any property?
A. Yes, sir; I will take that back; I did get a
fraction of a lot from Mr. Campbell but that is out-
side of this tract.
Q. If you had been there from 1899 on to 1903
without acquiring any land, you must have heard
that Ripinski claimed this land?
A. Yes, sir.'
Q. It was commonly talked over and known
there? A. Yes.
Q. So when you acquired your propert}^ there,
you knew you were buying it with the claim of Sol.
Ripinski on it, didn't you — knew he asserted some
claim to the land at the time you bought it ?
A. I knew he claimed it, and lost it in court too.
Q. Then you thought his claim wasn't any good?
A. Yes, sir, he lost it in court.
G, W. Hinchman et al. 397
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. You say you had a garden upon this disputed
tract, on these lots'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Pretty good garden'? A. Very good.
Q. Good soil up there, isn't if?
A. Very good, yes, sir.
Q. Raise vegetables and things on it readily?
A. Yes, sir.
And there are many gardens there — Mr,
Hinchman and others have gardens'?
Yes, sir.
Who else has a garden there?
Mr. Creeden is one.
On this Lot No. 11%
No, sir, outside of this strip.
Pretty good land up there generally, isn't it?
Well, yes, it is.
That's all.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — When you say you heard of
some alleged claim of Solomon Ripinski, did you
have any idea as to the boundaries or extent of his
claim?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. He never told you anything about the bound-
aries of his claim at all — did he ?
A. No, I never talked with Ripinski about it at
all.
Q. You never saw any fence or posts indicating
the boundaries of his claim at Haines there, did you?
A. No, sir.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
398 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
[Testimony of S. A. Adams, for the Plaintiffs.]
E. A. ADAMS, a witness called on belialf of the
plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testified as follows
on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Adams, where do you re-
side? A. Haines.
Q. How long have you lived there, sir'?
A. I came there in 1898.
Q. What time in 1898?
A. In the spring.
Q. Do you know the defendant Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention now to Plaintiffs' Ex-
hibit No. 1, which is a map and plat of the parcel of
ground in controversy' in this case, being a large por-
tion of the town of Haines, and I'll ask you if you're
familiar with the ground represented by that map?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the premises that are actually
occupied by the defendant Ripinski? A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Mrs. Sarah Dickinson in her
lifetime? A. I didn't know her; no.
Q. When you w^ent to Haines in the spring of
1898 did you have an}^ occasion to examine the
premises now occupied by Mr. Ripinski?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was the j)hysical condition of the land
on which is now situate lots or blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
6 of the town of Haines, when vou went there?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 3'99
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
A. In a wild state.
Q. Unoccupied?
A. Unoccupied; yes, sir.
Q. Were there any people there ahead of you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Who, if you can state their names?
A. Well, Tim Vogel, Harry Fay, a man by the
name of Spooner — that's all I can recall.
Q. Were there any marks of improvement on
any portion of this tract covered by these blocks I
have just referred to, except what was done by these
men who went there ahead of you and located their
lots? A. That's all I seen.
Q.' What was the condition of that tract of land
as to whether or not it was cleared or tunbered?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. It was timbered.
Q. Has it all been cleared since? A. No.
Q. How much of it is still uncleared?
A. The biggest portion of it.
Q. On this tract? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How are blocks numbered, one and two, are
they cleared? A. They're pretty well cleared.
Q. And Block No. 3?
A. Well, that's uncleared.
Q. There's a portion of it cleared?
A. Yes, sir, here and there they done a little
clearing, stumps and so on here and there.
Q. Are you familiar — you are one of the plain-
tiffs in this action? A. Yes, sir.
400 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Q. Are you familiar witli the amount of work
done in clearing and grading and building on this
disputed tract?
A. I wouldn't try to estimate it; I don't know
what it cost.
Q. What property do you own there now?
A. It is Lot No. 10 I think, in Block No. I.
Q. It is marked on this map as No. 12, is it not?
A. Well, it should be No. 10, I think.
Q. Isn't it marked as No. 14?
A. If it is, I think it is wrong.
Q. You think it should be No. 10?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. In Block No. 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is marked E. A. Adams — that's your name,
isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you first take possession of that
parcel of land?
A. I took it on the 10th day of January, 1899.
Q. Did you locate it or purchase it?
A. I located it.
Q. In locating it how did you locate it, mark the
boundaries in any way so they could be seen?
A. Yes, sir, and put a fence around it.
Q. What is the size of that lot, Mr. Adams?
A. I believe they are fifty by a hundred and
fort}^
Q. That's the regulation size of all the lots in the
disputed tract, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Except where they have been cut up or
divided, is it? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 401
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Q. Have you owned that property ever since you
went there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you build your house there ?
A. Right away, as soon as I took it up.
Q. How much of an expenditure have you made
on the lot in clearing and building, including labor,
material and everything incurred in the necessary
expenses of clearing and building?
A. Perhaps four or five hundred dollars.
Q. You say you know the defendant Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever make any protest to
you against you building on that lot ?
A. He never did.
Q. Did he ever lay any claim to that lot?
A. He never did to me.
Q. He has been in business in Haines right
along, hasn't he, during all the time, practically,
that you have been there?
A. I don't know, I suppose he has; I ain't down
in that part of town very much.
Q. Any way, he never laid any claim to your lot?
A. Never to me.
Q. And never protested against your building
there ? A. Never.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— When did you buy that
lot? A. I didn't buy it.
Q. Did you take it up?
A. Yes, sir, located.
Q. When? A. In 1899.
400 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Q. Are you familiar with the amount of work
done in clearing and grading and building on this
disputed tract?
A. I wouldn't try to estimate it; I don't know
what it cost.
Q. What property do you own there now'?
A. It is Lot No. 10 I think, in Block No. I.
Q. It is marked on this map as No. 12, is it not?
A. Well, it should be No. 10, I think.
Q. Isn't it marked as No. 14?
A. If it is, I think it is wrong.
Q. You think it should be No. 10?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In Block No. 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is marked E. A. Adams — that's your name,
isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you first take possession of that
parcel of land?
A. I took it on the 10th day of January, 1899.
Q. Did you locate it or purchase it?
A. I located it.
Q. In locating it how did you locate it, mark the
boundaries in any way so they could be seen?
A. Yes, sir, and put a fence around it.
Q. What is the size of that lot, Mr. Adams?
A. I believe they are fifty by a hundred and
forty.
Q. That's the regulation size of all the lots in the
disputed tract, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Except where they have been cut up or
divided, is it? A. Yes, sir.
G. W, Hmchman et al. 401
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Q. Have you owned that property ever since you
went there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you build your house there?
A. Right away, as soon as I took it up.
Q. How much of an expenditure have you made
on the lot in clearing and building, including labor,
material and everything incurred in the necessary
expenses of clearing and building?
A. Perhaps four or five hundred dollars.
Q. You say jou know the defendant Ripinski?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Ripinski ever make any protest to
you against you building on that lot?
A. He never did.
Q. Did he ever lay any claim to that lot?
A. He never did to me.
Q. He has been in business in Haines right
along, hasn't he, during all the time, practically,
that you have been there?
A. I don't know, I suppose he has; I ain't down
in that part of town very much.
Q. Any way, he never laid any claim to your lot?
A. Never to me.
Q. And never protested against your building
there ? A. Never.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNING-S.— When did you buy that
lot? A. I didn't buy it.
Q. Did you take it up?
A. Yes, sir, located.
Q. When? A. In 1899.
402 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Q. What part of 1899?
A. Tenth of January.
Q. You knew at that time that Sol. Ripinski
claimed that land?
A. I didn't when I took it up; I have taken it and
had a house half built before I found out there was
any claim on it.
Q. How did you hear about it?
A. Some one told me.
Q. Who? A. I don't know.
Q. That was in January, 1899? A. Yes.
Q. You never heard of the claim of Sol. Ripinski,
you say? A. That's the first of it.
Q. How long had you been in Haines at that
time?
A. I came there in the spring and worked for
Jack Dalton, the spring of 1898, and then I lived
in Juneau until about January and then I went to
Haines and took up a lot as soon as I got there.
Q. You just came back to Haines and took up the
lot? A. Yes, sir, took it up.
Q. And between your house and Ripinski 's
house, the place where he lives, was a dense forest
you say?
A. Yes, sir, it was all brush and timber.
Q. He couldn't see your house from his house,
could he? A. I don't think he could.
Q. Couldn't see what was going on there, could
he? A. No, sir.
Q. How long did it take you to build that house?
A. Perhaps two weeks.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 403
(Testimon}' of E. A. Adams.)
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Mr. Ripinski lived over at Chil-
kat until when — when did he move over to Haines?
A. I couldn't say.
Q. You say you heard nothing about any alleged
claim of Ripinski until you had your house about
half constructed?
A. That's the first I knew of it.
Q. Did you hear then anything which was sufS-
cient to apprise you where his alleged or claimed
boundaries were? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know to this day, except as jou have
seen on this may, where he claims his boundaries
are? A. That's all I know about it.
Q. You never saw a post or a stake to indicate
any land that he claimed? A. I never did.
Q. You never saw any notice on any premises of
his warning people to keep off?
A. I believe I did see his homestead notice on the
beach.
Q. That was in the year 1903 wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's the only notice you ever saw?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when that notice was posted, there was
c[uite a respectable looking town at Haines, wasn't
there?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, there was some building going on.
Q. About how many inhabitants would you say,
w^hite inhabitants, are there in Haines?
404 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of E. A. Adams.)
Objected to as immaterial.
— that is approxim.ately '^
A. Oil, it would only be a guess with me — I
should say there was seventy-five.
Q. Does that include all the inhabitants, or just
those on this disputed tract?
A. Just on the disputed tract.
[Testimony of W. B. Stout, for the Plaintiffs (Re-
called) .]
W. B. STOUT, recalled on behalf of the plaintiffs,
testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— I believe you stated, Mr. Stout,
that you were agent for some of the plaintiffs in this
action ?
A. I am agent for Butterick Brothers, for Ida
Johnson, E. J. Burgher, and I presume for Mrs. Kab~
ler — ^haven't heard from Mrs. Kabler for a year, I
guess.
Q. Now, can you point out on this map the prop-
erty of Ida Johnson, for whom you are agent?
A. If I could see it, Mr. Lyons, I could.
Q. Your eyes are pretty bad, are they ?
A. Yes, they are, worse to-day than common, too.
Q. Have you a glass that would enable you to see
it?
A. Well, I will try — now, I don't know who Ida
Johnson got her lot from.
Q. What Block is it in?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 405
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
A. It is in Block No. 2, and it lays adjoining Mr.
Weitzman's lot, lays immediately east of Mr. Weitz-
man's lot, wherever that is.
Q. Did Mrs. Johnson own that property at the
date of the commencement of this action?
A. Yes, sir; that is, I was agent for her at the
time.
Q. Does she own it still?
A. So far as I know.
Q. There is house on her lot, is there ?
A. There is.
Q. Have you ever collected rents for her?
A. I have.
Q. How about Butterick Brothers?
A. Now, I don't know the lines, Mr. Lyons, of
their property.
AVhat block is it in?
Do you know in what block that is ?
As I understand it, their lines run with the
Q
Q
A
other lines in Block No. 1.
Q. What property in that block do they adjoin ?
A. They adjoin some property belonging to — I
don't know whether Mr. Weitzman or Mrs. Weitz-
man's name — it lays on the south of the Weitzman's
property and faces on what we call Vogel Avenue.
Q. Marked on this plat as a portion of parcel —
A. I don't know what it is marked on there.
Q. Well, it lies south, you say, of the R. L. Weitz-
man lot?' A. I presume it is.
Q. Marked D. Butterick on this map,
A. Yes, I presume that's the one.
406 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. Is there a house on that parcel of land?
A. Yes, sir; there is.
Q. Did Butterick own that at the time of the com-
mencement of this suit? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is one of the plaintiffs in this action?
A. Yes, sir; he is.
Q. And ^''ou represent him — you're his agent?
A. I am.
Q. You have collected rent for him?
A. I have.
Q. Is he still owner of that property?
A. So far as I know, unless he sold it within the
last month.
Q. He hasn't transferred it to jovlt knowledge?
A. He has not.
Q. Has he revoked your agency ?
A. He has not.
Q. Mr. E. J. Burgher, you're agent for him, you
say? A. I am.
Q. What block does Mr. Burgher own property
in?
A. I think it is in Block No. 3, and I think it is
Lot 4, I'm not sure of that.
Q. What property does it adjoin, if you know?
A. It adjoins Bjornstad's property on the east.
Q. And it is marked on this plat No. 4?
A. Well, I think that's right then.
Q. Is there a house on that lot?
A. Yes, a little house on it :
Q. Did Burgher own those premises at the date
G. W. Hinchman et al. 407
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
of the commencement of this action and prior there-
to'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he owns it still?
A. As far as I know.
Q. And are j^ou his agent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have collected rents for him?
A. Yes, sir ; whenever I have been able to rent it.
Q. And you have the right to exercise ownership
and possession of that lot in his behalf?
A. I have.
Q. And you still do so ? A. I still do.
Q. Is there any other one of the plaintiffs that
you are agent for, Mr. Stout?
A. No, only Mrs. Kabler, that I spoke of before.
Q. Do you represent Mr. Eappolt?
A. No, sir; I think Mr. Bjornstad represents
him — that's ni}^ understanding.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — You're postmaster at
Haines, Mr. Stout? A. I am.
Q. Did you ever receive a registered letter ad-
dressed to Ida Johnson warning her not to do any
more building on that property?
A. I think not.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Well, do you swear you didn't?
No, sir; I won't.
You may have?
I won't swear that I did or I didn't.
Won't swear anything about it?
I will not — only I don't remember of receiv-
ina' one.
408 Solomon Uipinshy vs.
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. You're postmaster there at Haines and agent
for Ida Johnson?
A. I am ; hut Ida Johnson was here a year or two
herself.
Q. When was Ida Johnson here?
A. Well, she has heen gone now for a couple of
years; she built the house were she lived — I think
she did — and if they served notice on anyone it was
probably on her personally.
Q. When did she build that house?
A. I don't remember, Mr. Jennings, just when it
was.
Q. Can't you give us any idea at all?
A. Well, perhaps within the last four years she
built it.
Q. Didn't she build it in the last three years?
A. She might.
Q. Within the last two years?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Don't you know, Mr. Stout, that when she
was building that house she received a registered let-
ter, signed by myself as attorney for Sol. Ripinski,
warning her not to build on that lot ?
A. I would be able to find it if I was at home in
the office — we have so many of those things.
Q. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the agent of
a person to know that, would it?
A. Not if he received it himself, and made a note
of it.
Q. She never told you she received such a letter?
A. And I don't think I ever received it, either.
G. W. ninchman et al. 409
(Testimony of W. B. Stout.)
Q. Did she ever tell 3^011 she did %
A. She never told me an3^thing about it, Mr. Jen-
nings.
Q. Then you don't know whether she had notice
that that land was Ripinski's or not?
A. I don't remember; no, sir.
Q. I mean, irrespective of anj^ letter, 3'ou don't
know whether she, Ida Johnson, knew it was Rip-
inski's land? A. No, sir.
Q. And you don't know whether E. J. Burgher
knew it? A. No, sir.
Q. And you don't know whether Katie Kabler
knew it?
A. No, sir ; I don 't know what they know ; I only
understand what I know myself, and sometimes I
think I don't know that.
Q. You say you have no interest in this litigation
at all?
A. No, sir; further than as agent for those par-
ties.
Q. And you have been assisting Mr. Lyons to run
down the records for evidence in this case ?
A. I have.
Q. And devoting a good deal of time to it?,
A. Yes, sir; I have; at the request of the plain-
tiffs.
Q. At their employment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They pay you for it ? A.I don 't know.
Q. Did you ask them for pay for it?
A. I have not ; no, sir.
410 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. They just asked you to do that, and you
turned in and helped them?
A. The}^ asked me to do it — I leave the pay to
them.
[Testimony of Carl Bjornstad, for the Plaintiffs (Re-
called) .]
CARL BJOiENSTAD, being recalled by the plain-
tiffs, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— You know Mr. Eappolt, do you,
Mr. Bjornstad? A. I do.
Q. Are you acting as his agent in Haines?
A. I am.
Q. What lot does he own in the town of Haines ?
A. Why, that one there right next to Karen
Bjornstad.
Q. Lot No. 6, in Block 3 — is that the only one?
A. The only one I know of.
Q. You are acting as his agent?
A. I am, sir; with reference to that lot, yes, sir.
Q. You're in possession of it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any building on that lot?
A. There is part of a building — there has been
a tent building there, and the tent is off, the frame is
there, and there is a fence around it.
Q. Did that property belong to Rappolt at the
time of the commencement of this action?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were agent for him at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hincliman et cd. 411
(Testimony of Carl Bjornstad.)
Q. And are now? A. I am.
Q. And have been at all times since the beginning
of the action! A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Eapinski ever notify you that he
claimed that lot? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Where is Mr. Rappolt?
A. Fairbanks.
Q. How long has he been in Fairbanks?
A. Two years, I guess.
Q. How long has it been since he has been at
Haines? A. I guess that is three years.
Q. Been longer that that, hasn't it?
A. Maybe it has, I wouldn't say — quite a while
ago.
Q. It has been five years, hasn't it?
A. I couldn't say.
Q. It might have been five years for all you
know ? A. Quite a while ago ; yes, sir.
Q. What is Mr. Rappolt's occupation?
A. He is a baker by trade.
Q. There is an old dismantled bakery on that lot
now? A. Yes, sir, there is.
Q. Just the frame-work? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The lot isn't used for anything, and hasn't
been for years ?
A. Yes, sir, there has been natives living on it.
Q. How much rent does the native pay you?
A. I told the native when he went in there he
could pay what he could afford to pay me —
Q. How much did he pay?
412 Solomon Ei'pinsky vs.
(Testimonj^ of Carl Bjornstad.)
A. Never paid me anything.
Q. When did you hear from Mr. Rappolt last ?
A. I heard from him quite a while ago, when he
first came to Fairbanks.
Q. Two years ago? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's the last time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much rent did you ever collect for that
lot? A. I didn't collect any at all.
Q. What have you ever done as agent for Mr.
Eappolt in caring for that lot?
A. I put up a fence around it.
Q. How much did that cost you?
A. Onl}^ my labor.
Q. Did Mr. Eappolt pay you back at all for that?
A. He hasn't yet; no.
Q. When did you put the fence around that lot?
A. When we lived in the house on the lot along-
side of this one.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. I guess it's three or four years ago.
Q. Did you ever demand from Mr. Rappolt any
pay for it ? A. No, sir.
[Testimony of S. J. Weitzman, for the Plaintiffs
(Recalled).]
S. J. WEITZMAN, recalled on behalf of the
plaintiffs, testified on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Mr. Weitzman, you know
Peter Johnson, one of the plaintiffs in this suit?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchmcm et al. -113
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Are you his agent *?
Objected to as leading and not the proper way to
prove agency.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What property does he own in Haines?
A. Lots 4, 5, and 6 in Block No. 4.
Q. You say you're his agent for the purpose of
taking care of that property? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he own that property at the date of the
commencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does he still own it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was in possession of it at the date of the
commencement of the action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever collected any rents for him
from the leasing of this property?
A. I have not. He instructed me to build a new
building on it and I built it last year and this year.
Q. That is on Lot No. 4 in Block 4?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he the only one of the plaintiffs in this
action that you represent as agent?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have been in possession of those three
lots for him, have you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And were in possession of them at the date of
the commencement of this action for him as his
agent? A. Yes, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— When did you build a
house there for Mr. Johnson?
A. This last house, last fall, I think.
414 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. Whicli house is that?
A. On Lot No. 4 there.
Q. That was in the fall of 1906?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You certainly knew at that time that Ripinski
had a claim to this land in dispute?
A. Not excepting that Homestead Claim there.
Q. You never heard Mr. Weitzman of any claim
that Sol. Eipinski put or had upon that land up to
that time excepting his homestead notice he filed in
1903? A. Nothing whatever.
Q. Who is Peter Johnson?
A. He is a mining man.
Q. A¥here is he now? A. Eampart.
Q. How long has he been there?
A. He has been there for the last ten or fifteen
years, I suppose, now.
Q. Do you know him? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you see him last?
A. Three years ago.
Q. Have you gotten any letters from him?
A. All the time, yes, sir; shipping in goods to
him right along.
Q. Got any of those letters with you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You've got absolutely nothing to show that
you're agent for Pete Johnson, have you?
A. I have got to show, yes, sir.
Q. Show it then ?
A. I haven't got it with me — I have it home.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 415
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Q. You say Pete Johnson is the owner of that
property now*? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You swear to that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how do you know that, Mr. Weitzman'?
A. I'm representing him, sir.
Q. How do you know he hasn't sold that prop-
erty to his wife or to his daughter?
A. Well, he hasn't notified me then.
Q. Couldn't he sell it to either of them and not
notify you? A. No; his wife died last fall.
Q. He might have sold it to his daughter?
A. Well, he didn't notify me then.
Q. That's the only reason you can assign —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And yet you're willing to get up there on the
stand and swear that Pete Johnson owns that prop-
erty still? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You haven't looked up any records to find
out whether he has conveyed it to anybody?
A. He would notify me, I think.
Q. Answer the question. You haven't looked up
any records to see whether Pete Johnson has con-
veyed that property to anyone? A. No.
Q. And yet, sir, you're willing to get on this
stand and swear that he still owns it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's on a par with all the rest of your
testimony in this case, isn't it — that's the way you
know all the other things you have testified to in this
case?
416 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of S. J. Weitzman.)
Objected to as not cross-examination, unfair, and
improper.
A. Well, I will admit as you say Pete Johnson
may be guessing about it —
Q. Answer the question I put to 3^ou — Mr. Gil-
lette, repeat the question to the witness, please.
(Question repeated to the witness.)
Counsel for the plaintiffs objects to the question
as insulting and improper, not cross-examination,
and instructs the witness not to answer the question.
Q. Well, now, your attorney has instructed you
— are you going to follow his advice?
A. Sure.
Q. And you refuse to answer on the advice of
your attorney? A. I do.
Q. All right, sir, that's satisfactory; that's the
very answer I want.
By Mr. LYONS.— Well, you've got it, haven't
you, Mr. Jennings?
[Testimony of J. W. Martin, for the Plaintiffs (Re-
called).]
J. W. MARTIN, recalled on behalf of the plain-
tiffs, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Martin, you're acquainted
with M. V. Macintosh and Mary Macintosh, who
reside in Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know where their lots are on this plat?
A. This one right here marked M. V. Macintosh.
Q. What is it marked there — the number?
G. W. Hinchman ef al. 417
(Testimony of J. W. Martin.)
A. There doesn't seem to be any number on it.
Q. Isn't that marked Lot No. 8^?
A. No; that's Mahan's.
Q. It is the corner parcel — the northwest corner
parcel of that block? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the corner of Main Street and Second
Avenue? A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Macintosh in possession of those
premises at the date of the commencement of this
action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is he in possession of the premises still?
A. Yes, Mrs. Macintosh is.
Q. Does she own any other lot within the dis-
puted tract? A. I think not.
Q. Does M. V. Macintosh own any other parcel
on the disputed tract?
A. That's M. V. Macintosh we have just been
talking about.
Q. That one there is Miss Macintosh, is it?
A. Yes, sir; the other one is Mary V. Macintosh
— this one here.
Q. Lot No. 1 in Block No. 3— was Mary V. Mac-
intosh in possession of that lot at the date of the
commencement of this action? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is she now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you agent for any of the plaintiffs in this
action, Mr. Martin? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
ByMr. JENNINGS.— What's the difference be-
tween Mary V. Macintosh and M. V. Macintosh?
A. Mother and daughter, is all.
418 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon^y of J. W. Martin.)
Q. Which is the mother and which is the daugh-
ter?
A. M. V. Macintosh is the mother, Mary V. the
daughter.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— Both of those lots are improved,
and have buildings on them, have they?
A. Yes, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— That's the wife and daugh-
ter of the Presbyterian Missionary at Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The man that succeeded Mr. Harrison?
A. Mr. Warne.
[Certain Offers in Evidence, etc.]
By Mr. LYONS.— We now offer in evidence the
original complaint in Cause No. 868 entitled "In the
District Court of the United States for the District
of Alaska, Sol. Ripinski, Plaintiff, vs. M. W. Lane,
Harry Fay, E. P. Cronen, Sarah Cronen, Tim Vogel,
W. W. Warne, Adolph Hochesand, W. A. Bigelow,
N. Trubschenck, Tim Cruden, John Doe, Richard
Roe, John Doe, Richard Roe, Mary Doe, and Mary
Roe whose true names are unknown, defendants,"
filed April 5th, 1899, Albert D. Elliot, Clerk.
Objected to as inmiaterial and irrelevant to any
of the issues in this case, and insufficient to consti-
tute an estoppel or res adjudicata for which purpose
I suppose it is offered, because the parties plaintiff
and defendant in the suit from which the complaint
G. W. Hinchman et al. 419
is offered are not the same, and because the subject
matter of that suit is not the same as in this case.
It is now stipulated by and between the respective
counsel that the original complaint above offered
may be copied by the referee and transcribed into
the records of this case —
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Subject to the objection
just made.
By Mr. LYONS. — If it is going to be written into
the record, you needn't mark it as an exhibit Mr.
Gillette. I now offer in evidence the amended an-
swer in the last described entitled cause, filed June
17th, 1899, Albert D. Elliot, Clerk, and ask the
Referee to transcribe into the record the original of
the same under the above stipulation.
Objected to — that is to the introduction of the
paper — on the ground that it is irrelevant and im-
material to any issue in this case, insufficient to con-
stitute an estoppel or plea of res adjudicata for the
reason that the parties plaintiff and defendant in
the suit mentioned are not the parties plaintiff and
defendant in the case at bar, and because the subject
matter is not the same, and because there is no es-
toppel or res adjudicata plead.
This will be copied into the record in like manner,
Mr. Gillette. I now offer in evidence a paper styled
a "Verdict," which is found in the papers and files
420 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
and in the record of the case last described, which
reads as follows:
"Ripinski vs. Lane et al.
We the jury find for the defendants."
(Signed) JOHN STANLEY, foreman.
Endorsed: No. 868. Sol. Ripinski vs. M. W.
Lane et al. Verdict. Filed June 17, 1889. Albert
D. Elliot, Clerk."
Defendant objects to that paper for the reason
that it is immaterial and irrelevant to any of the
issues in this case, and for the further reason that
the suit, case, or action in which said verdict was
rendered is not between the same parties plaintiff
and defendant as in the case at bar; for the further
reason that the issues in the two cases are different,
and for the further reason that the verdict is not
such a verdict as is authorized by law and is not
such a verdict as is required by law and not in ac-
cordance with the statute in such cases made and
provided; and because an estoppel or res adjudicata
are not plead in this case.
I now offer in evidence a judgment in the last
above described, nmnbered and entitled cause, and
ask that the Referee transcribe the said judgment
with all of its endorsements into the record in this
case, and that the same, as well as all the other
papers in this last described numbered and entitled
action be considered a part of the evidence in this
case.
Objected to — defendant objects to the introduc-
tion of said papers, for the reason that said judg-
ment is irrelevant and immaterial to any of the is-
G. W. Hinchman et ah 421
sues in this case; for the further reason that if it
be intended or offered for the purpose of creating
an estoppel or plea of res adjudicata the parties to
said suit are not the same as the parties in the case
at Bar, and for the further reason that said judg-
ment is nothing more nor less than a judgment of
dismissal and does not undertake to adjudge the
rights to the property in issue as between the par-
ties to this suit or even iis between the parties to
the cause No. 868.
(Adjourned until 7:30 P. M. this date.)
The Complaint, Amended Answer, and Judgment
last above offered on behalf of the plaintiffs are
copied in the record herein, and found on pages 631,
636, and 635 respectively of this Report. The re-
maining papers in said Cause No. 868 are delivered
to the Clerk of the Court at Juneau with the infor-
mation that plaintiffs' attorney request the same be
held at Juneau and considered as evidence in this
case.
L. R. GILLETTE,
Referee.
[Stipulation Concerning Certain Evidence, etc.]
And be it further remembered, that this said mat-
ter came on for further hearing pursuant to adjourn-
ment at the U. S. Courthouse at Skagwa}^, Alaska,
on said 8th day of July, 1907, 7:30 o'clock P. M.,
there being present the same as this morning.
Whereupon, the following stipulation was entered
into by and between the resjjective parties by and
through their attorneys, T. R. Lyons, for the plain-
422 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
tiffs, and E. W. Jennings, for the defendant, touch-
ing the introduction of further testimony:
[Stipulation Concerning Introduction of Additional
Evidence, etc.]
By Mr. LYONS.— "It is hereby stipulated and
agreed by and between all the parties hereto, by
their respective counsel, that the plaintiffs herein
may procure from the U. S. Commissioner for the
District of Alaska in and for Skagway precinct, ab-
stracts of all the instruments of record in the office
of the Skagway recording district touching and af-
fecting in any way their claim of right, title and
interest in and to any or all of the premises in con-
troversy in this action, including all location notices,
deeds, and other instruments in writing in any way
affecting their chain of title to said premises or any
portion thereof; that said abstracts of title shall
merely contain the name of the party or parties to
any of the instruments included or referred to in
said abstracts of title, with a description of the prop-
erty affected thereby; that said abstracts of title
shall be certified to by the U. S. Commissioner for
the District of Alaska in and for Skagway precinct;
that when said abstracts of title are so certified,
they may be received in evidence in this action and
have the same effect as if all of the instruments re-
ferred to in said abstracts of title were fully tran-
scribed by said U. S. Commissioner and certified to
by him to be a full, true, and correct copy of the
same as they appear of record in his office; and no
objection shall be offered to the said abstracts of
title, except such objections as might be offered to
G. W. Hinchman et al. 423
the original instruments or certified copies thereof;
that said abstracts, so certified b}^ said Commis-
sioner shall be filed with the Referee herein on or be-
fore the 28th day of July, 1907, and shall be consid-
ered as a part and portion of plaintiffs' case in chief,
and no objections shall be offered to them by the de-
fendant on account of their not having been intro-
duced and received in evidence before the defendant
offered and put in his testimony herein or any por-
tion thereof; that defendant may have until the 5th
day of August, 1907, within which to file written
objections to the relevancy and competency of said
abstracts of title, but no objection shall be taken
or made to said abstracts of title on account of their
not having been received in evidence prior to the
putting in of any testimony on the part of the de-
fendant, and no objections shall be made or taken
to said abstracts of title except such objections as
might be made to the original instruments or certi-
fied copies thereof from which said abstracts of title
shall be taken.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Provided, however, that
this stipulation is not to be construed as permitting
the introduction of any deed or instruments, if any
such there be, signed or purporting to be signed by
the defendant or any person in privity with him.
Defendant's counsel insist on the above proviso for
the reason that no opportunity is afforded for re-
butting such deed or instrument, if any such there
be. It is not at all admitted that there is any such
deed or instrument.
Plaintiffs rest.
424 Solomon Eipinshy vs.
Defense.
[Testimony of G. A. Baldwin, for the Defendant.]
G. A. BALDWIN, a witness called on behalf of
the defendant, and being first duly sworn, testified
as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What is your name?
A. Grant A. Baldwin.
Q. What is your business?
A. General merchandise.
Q. Whereabouts? A. At Chilkat.
Q. Chilkat, Alaska? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far is the place called Chilkat, Alaska,
from the place called Haines, Alaska?
A. It is about a mile and a half.
Q. What was your business — when did you first
come to Chilkat, Alaska?
A. The last of October or first of September,
1897.
Q. You mean the last of September or first of
October?
A. No, the last of August or the first of Sep-
tember.
Q. What was you doing when you first came
there ?
A. Clerking in Kohler & James' store.
Q. How long did you stay at Chilkat at that
time?
A. Till, well, about the first of March.
Q. Of 1898? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 425
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. While you were there — do you know Harry
Fay? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The gentleman who testified here on the wit-
ness-stand? A. I didn't hear him testify.
Q. You have seen him around the courtroom?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is one of the plaintiffs in this case —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is a merchant at Haines, I mean — when
did he first come to Chilkat, if you know?
A. Well, it was before Christmas —
Q. Some time before Christmas, 1897?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what he came up there to do?
A. He came to take charge of the store in my
place.
Q. To take charge of Kohler & James' store in
your place? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when he did come there,
the particular date?
A. No, I couldn't say the date.
Q. AVas it before the 15th day of December or
after that — the first, or the last half of December?
A. Well, I should judge somewhere around the
15th, it might have been before that — I wouldn't say
as to the day.
Q. You say he relieved you?
A. I believe he had a letter to that effect, to re-
lieve me — I was still there, he was to take charge.
Q. You turned the store over to him when he
came? A. I did.
426 Solomon Ripinskp vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. And you think that was about the fifteenth
of December? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time lie came to take charge of the
store did he say anything to you about having lo-
cated any lot over at Haines'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Baldwin, did you know Mrs. Sarah
Dickinson, an Indian woman by the name of Mrs.
Dickinson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I mean did you, at that time — December,
1897?
A. Well, I knew her all the time I was there,
yes, sir.
Q. Was she a common, ordinary native, or a wo-
man of intelligence, Mr. Baldwin?
A. Well, I think she was a Simptseanne native.
Q. Yes, but what kind of a woman was she — did
.she speak English? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Write English? A. Yes, a little.
Q. Read English? A. Yes, sir.
Q. She Avas a kind of a Missionary among the
Indians, wasn't she, Mr. Baldwin?
A. Well, no, I don't think so; she might have had
a. little influence among them.
Q. Did you know her husband, George Dickin-
son? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know Sol. Ripinski at that time?
A. Well, after I had been there a week or so I
suppose I got acquainted with him.
Q. Were you ever called in to witness a deed oi
ponveyance from Mrs. Sarah Dickinson to Sol. Rip-
inski? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 427
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. What was the deed for — what did you ur:
ilerstand it was to convey — what was it about?
A. It was land at Haines.
Q. How much land at Haines'?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and im-
material; the deed is the best evidence.
Q. How much land was talked of at the time?
Same objection.
A. At the time I signed the deed I didn't know
— it was a plot of land at Haines.
Q. Did you know how much land at Haines is in-
cluded ? A. No, sir.
Q. I now hand the stenographer a paper and ask
him to mark it as exhibit — whatever it is — No. 7,
Cause No. 547. Now, I hand you the paper the
stenographer has marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 7
for Identification, and I call your attention to the
witnesses w^hose names appear there, F. A. Rogers
and G. A. Baldwin, and I ask you if that's your signa-
ture— G. A. Baldwin? A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. That's the deed you witnessed, is it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now offer that deed in evidence — you saw
Mrs. Dickinson sign that deed, did you?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. I now offer that deed in evidence.
Plaintiffs object to the offer for the reason that the
description contained in the deed is indefinite, and no
person could ascertain from the instrument itself
what land is sought to be conveyed by it ; and for the
428 Solomon Bipinslij us.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
further reason that the deed or paper offered pur-
ports to have been acknowledged —
By Mr. LYONS. — Just a moment; I will ask the
witness a question.
Q. Do you know whose signature that is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose is it? A. Sol. Ripinski's.
Q. This deed then was acknowledged before him ?
A. Yes; he was the notary at the time.
The offer is objected to, second, for the reason that
it purports, the deed purports to have been acknowl-
edged before the grantee therein, Sol. Ripinski; and
(3) for the reason that it appears from the deed that
it was filed for record December 15th, 1897, and re-
corded in Book 1 of Deeds at page 31, b}^ John U.
Smith, U. S. Commissioner at Dyea, and at that time
the Dyea Commissioner's office wasn't a legal record-
ing office and the only place a deed or any other in-
strument could be recorded and give notice to the
world of any conveyance of property at Haines would
be at Juneau, Alaska ; for the further reason (4) that
the instrument bears evidence upon its face that it
was recorded in the Recorder's office at Juneau, on
the 28th day of January, 1899, a date long subsequent
to the location of nearly all of the premises in dis-
pute and a date long subsequent to the time the tract
in dispute in this case had been located by different
occupants who are plaintiffs in this case and their
grantors; and for the further reason (5), that there
is nothing to show that Mrs. Dickinson, the grantor
in the deed, owned any land at Haines which she
G. W. Hindi man et ah 429
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
could convey on the date thereof, the evidence so far
in the case showing that Mrs. Dickinson owned only
a small portion of the ground at Haines now in con-
troversy', to wit, that portion which is conceded to be
the premises that Sol. Eipinski now occupies and is
not in controversy in this action.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Baldwin, at the time
you witnessed this deed you have just testified to, was
Harry Fay in Chilkat ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever have any conversation with
Harry Fay in which you stated to him or said any-
thing to lead him to believe that this deed wasn't made
at the time you witnessed it or that this signature
wasn 't signed on there at the time you witnessed it %
A. I don't get the drift of your question.
Q. Mr. Fay testified here that this was a bogus
deed, trumped up afterwards, and you were sent there
to witness it, and that he w^as there at the time you
were sent there to witness it — is that true or not true ?
A. I don't know what time he is referring to;
that's the deed I signed about the 2d of December.
Q. And Harry Fay wasn't there at all?
A. Not at that time, no, sir.
Q. Mr. Baldwin, did you see the money paid over
at that time ? A.I saw some money ; yes.
Q. At the time the deed was signed?
A. I saw some money pass from Ripinski to Mrs.
Dickinson; I got some of it — I don't know just how
much it was. (I understood it was for the land.)
Stricken.
430 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as not respon-
sive to the question; the witness is not to state his
understanding, but to state the facts.
Q. Now, you say at that time that Mrs. Dickinson
didn 't say anything about it being sixteen acres ?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Did she say how much land it was ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did she at any time afterwards tell you how
much land she sold to Ripinski under this deed?
Objected to on the ground that the deed is the best
evidence as to what it conveys, and after the grantor
had passed her alleged interest she could not by any
subsequent declaration increase, alter or modify the
deed so as to make it include any other premises than
what she described in the deed.
A. Yes, sir, she said she sold sixteen acres, less one
acre she sold to Mr. Dalton.
Q. Sixteen acres?
A. She said she owned originally sixteen acres.
Q. And has sold to Ripinski the sixteen acres, less
one acre she had sold to Mrs. Dalton?
Same objection as last above.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many times do you suppose you have
heard her state that ?
Same objection.
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, more than once ?
A. Well, I wouldn't say as to that; I might have
heard her repeat it several times— I heard it once I
know of.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 431
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. You're certain of that?
A. Yes, sir ; and after that she might have spoken
about it.
Q. I now call 3'our attention to a plat introduced in
evidence here and called Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1,
and I call your attention to that line here just north
of the line called the "^fission" ; I'll ask you now, and
state to you that it is practicall.y conceded in this
case that the old trail run along what is shown on this
plat as Main Street, was included in Main Street
somewhere — not exactly synon;^Tiious with Main
Street, but the old trail run along there ; now I will
ask you if you have ever seen any fence along that old
trail ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On which side of the old trail, the south or the
north side of it ?
A. There was a rail fence from the corner of the
Mission ground as far as the Mission ground was
cleared off.
Q. You mean the corner nearest the beach ?
A. Not quite to the bench ; yes, sir.
Q. There is a big rock down there, isn 't there %
A. Yes, sir, right near where Blankenburg's store
is.
Q. And that's about opposite —
A. Lindsay's.
Q. That is, it is opposite a point about midway
between Morrison's Hotel and the beach, isn't it—
Blankenburg's?
A. No, it is on the other side of the street.
432 Solomon Ripinsluj vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. I say opposite the point, about midway be-
tween Morrison's Hotel and the beach ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you saw a rail fence running from that
point up to —
A. Well, it would be to about where Tim Vogel's
saloon is.
Q. A rail fence, on the south side of the trail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see any fence on the north side
of the old trail nowf
A. There was just a trail — there was a wire —
Q. As you indicate, the thing crossed right there ^.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The little rail fence stopped about there ?
A. I think it did, and then turned to the south.
Q. And then on the other side, the north side of the
trail, there was something of a wire fence, you say ?
A. There was a wire put across the trail right at
the corner.
Q. Did that wire then turn any %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it run then to the west or east ?
A. - To the west.
Q. And then you never saw it any more ?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know where it went then ?
A. No, sir; I don't know whether it run five feet
or five thousand.
Q. How far back did you see that — that is, when
this deed was executed? Was that before or after
the deed was executed ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 433
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Yes, sir, after; I was never in Haines before
the deed was executed.
Q. And pretty soon after that you saw this fence*?
A. Yes, sir, I was driving a team through there
and took down the wire to get through.
Q. When you first saw Haines, the first time you
wxnt over there was after the deed was executed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was on the ground at the time — who did
you see there *?
A. Well, I think Spooner had a hotel there, and I
don't know whether Mr. Martin had his store there
or not.
Q. Did Mr. Fay have a store there then ?
A. Well, it was Fay and Martin.
Q. How long after the deed was executed was it
you were over there the first time f
A. Well, I don 't know as to that.
Q. How did Fay come to have a store there if he
had been sent up to relieve you keeping store at Chil-
kat?
A. AVell, they just started one — that's all I know.
Q. Do you know where Fay — was he doing busi-
ness in a tent at Haines or did he have a store then %
A. I think they had a tent until they finished the
log cabin.
Q. Do you remember where that tent was when
you saw it?
A. I wouldn't say whether it was alongside or be-
hind the log cabin now.
Q. How far was it from Spooner 's hotel?
434 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Probably a liundred and fifty feet.
Q. To the west or the east ?
A. I get the directions mixed up — let 's see, it was
to the west, I think.
Q. You're not sure whether you saw Fay there
himself? A. No, he didn't stay there.
Q. Are you sure whether you saw Martin there 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, you're sure you saw Martin there?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Outside of those two persons, Spooner and
Martin, did you see anybody else at Haines?
A. Well, there was quite a few strangers around
there then ; the Plumbert Expedition was there ; that
is, the}^ weren't right at Haines, they were out about
three miles.
Q. Do you know whether Spooner came up with
the Humbert Expedition ? A. I believe he did.
Q. It was so reported, was it?
A. Yes, sir, he was a bookkeeper or something for
them.
Q. Spooner had a hotel there — do you know
whether or not that was on the Dalton acre ?
A. I believe it was so conceded.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as to what was
conceded as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial —
we're not asking for concessions but facts.
Q. I'll ask you if it was so understood at tlie time
l3y people you talked with ?
Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the wit-
G. W. HiiicJiiitaii et at. 435
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
ness as to liis understandinc^ about what peo])le
thought.
A. Mr. Dalton said it was on his acre, and Mr.
Spooner paid him for it.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer because it is
hearsa,y, and the record is the best evidence of what
Mr. Dalton conveyed.
Q. Whereabouts was Spencer's hotel — about how
far from where Lindsay 's hotel is now '?
A. Well, I should say three hundred feet — 250 or
300 feet.
Q. Do you know where Morrison 's hotel is now 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far from the place where Morrison 's hotel
is now was that Spooner hotel 1
A. I think part of his hotel at the present time is
the old Spooner hotel.
Q. It was right a])out there, anyhow, was it not?
A. Yes, sir — same place.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Mr. Baldmn, you say you came
to Chilkat in the latter part of September, 1897 ?
A. No, sir.
Q. When? A. The fore part.
Q. And you remained in Chilkat until 1898 ?
A. Well, I think it was about the 15th of March
I started inside — something like that; I wouldn't say
the date exactly.
Q. And you say Mr. Fay came u]) there to relieve
you ? A. Yes, sir.
436 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A, Baldwin.)
Q. And you don't remember the date in Septem-
ber? A. It wasn't in September.
Q. Well, you don't remember the exact date in
December? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember about the date ?
A. Well, I wouldn't commit myself, but I have
always thought it was sometime before Christmas.
Q. Well, might it have been in the fore part of
December ?
A. Well, I don't think it could have been before
the tenth.
Q. Have .you any particular data that would en-
able .you to locate the exact date at this time %
A. Well, I suppose the old Kohler & James books
would locate it exactly.
Q. You haven't made au}^ examination of them to
ascertain? A. No, sir.
Q. You witnessed this deed that has been offered
in evidence, did you, Mr. Baldwin ?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. When did you witness that deed?
A. Well, the deed says the second of September —
I suppose that must have been the date.
Q. The second of September ?
A. Of December.
Q. You say you guess that must have been the
date — you're depending on the date in the deed for
your recollection of that fact, aren't you?
A. Yes, for the very day of the yeai*.
Q. If I should have met you a year ago and asked
you when you signed a deed as a witness executed by
G. W. Hinchman et al. 437
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Mrs. Dickinson to Ripinski, it would have been a mere
guess on your part if you .sfuessed the second day of
December, wouldn't it?
A. If you asked me, yes, sir — if you asked me a
year after that it might have been a guess; I must
have knew it was signed the second day of December.
Q. Why did you know that, Mr. Baldwin ?
A. That's pretty hard to sa}^
Q. You stated in response to a question I asked a
moment ago that you were relying on this instrument,
and an examination of it to apprise you of the fact it
was executed by you on the second of December —
what has caused you now to change your mind about
that answer ?
A. I don 't think I have changed my mind.
Q. Then your testimony is, Mr. Baldwin, at this
time is, if the deed hadn't been exhibited to you, or
somebod.y hadn't told you the deed was dated the sec-
ond of December, 1897, you wouldn't have known so
as to swear to it as a fact, what date the instrument
bore, could you ?
Objected to as not cross-examination, and unfair
to the witness.
A. Not within ten days, I don't think I could.
Q. Then it might have been, so far as you know,
that the instrument was signed by you some other day
than the day it is dated — isn't that true"?
Objected to—
A. No, sir, I don't think so.
Q. The deed wasn't dated in your presence, was
it? A. No, sir, it was not.
438 Solomon Ripinsliij vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. It was already made out before you were asked
to witness the signature, wasn 't it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In whose handwriting is that deed ?
A. Sol. Eipinski's, I think — I haven't noticed
particularity.
Q. In Sol. Eipinski's handwriting?
A. I haven't looked at it ; just let me see it.
Q. You have examined it many times before this?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Why do you ask me to exhibit it to you then ?
A. I just wanted to see it.
Q. Now, Mr. Baldwin, you say it is necessary for
3'ou to make a re-examination of that instrument in
order to ascertain who wrote it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you think, Mr. Baldwin, that the char-
acter of the writing on the instrument would have
made a much greater impression on your memory
than the immaterial fact of the date ?
Objected to as immaterial and argumentative.
A. Well, I didn 't care who wrote the deed ; I read
it before I signed it — I usuaUy read anything before
I sign it.
Q. When you're called in — are you accustomed to
signing very many deeds ? A. Not very many.
Q. You don't think it's the duty of a mtness to
read the deed when he is merely asked to witness a
signature ?
Objected to as immaterial and argumentative.
A. It is alw^ays best to know what .you're signing.
Q. As long as you indicate on there your signature,
that's a protection to you, isn't it?
G. ^Y. Hinclnuan et al. 439
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Objected to as inunaterial and argumentative.
A. As you say, that might have been put on after-
wards.
Q. You don't know, then, whether the word? "In
the presence of" were on that instrument at the time
you signed it ?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Why do you say, then, it might have been
put on afterwards?
A. I say in some cases it might have been.
Q. Now, Mr. Baldwin, you did state however,
that you didn't have any independent recollection
of the particular day on which this instrument was
executed by you as a witness'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It might have been, as a matter of fact, ten
days before the second day of December?
A. No, I don't think it was that far.
Q. You said just a moment ago that it might
have been?
A. I said five days either way, five days before
or five days after.
Q. Why couldn't it have been ten days before
or after?
A. Because I was only left in charge of the store
myself just about ten days.
Q. You had charge of that store but ten days?
A. Just about.
Q. When did you begin work in that store?
A. There was a gentleman by the name of Mike
Martin —
440 Solomon Eipinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. Never mind Martin; I want to know when you
took charge? A. The last of NoA'ember.
Q. What day? A. I couldn't say.
Q. The 25th— as late as the 25th?
A. Yes, as late as the 25th; yes, sir.
Q. And when did you relinquish charge of the
store? A. As soon as Fay came there.
Q. Well, when was that?
A. I don't know what day he came — I already
said that.
Q. But you said you only had charge of the store
ten days?
A. Something like that; I don't limit myself to
any particular days.
Q. I want you to limit yourself though?
A. I cannot; I had no occasion to limit myself,
my time was going on just the same — was supposed
to.
Q. That was chiefly what you were interested
in — the passage of tune was it? A. No, sir.
Q. You had no reason, Mr. Baldwin — now
frankly, sir, you had no reason to notice whether
this instrument was dated when you signed it or
not, did you?
A. Well, no, it was no interest to me — no, sir.
Q. And when you read the instrument you didn't
have any idea what property was sought to be con-
veyed any more than before you read it, did you?
Objected to as immaterial and argumentative.
A. I just understood in general where it was sit-
uated.
G. W. Hincliwan et al. 441
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. You didn't know how much it conveyed, did
you'? A. No, sir.
Q. The deed doesn't specify how much does if?
Objected to as immaterial and not the best evi-
dence.
A. I can't state.
Q. It says "all north of the Presbyterian Mis-
sion line," doesn't it? A. I think so.
Q. And there are a good many thousand acres
north of that line, aren't there'?
A. There must be — I don't know.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Dickinson sign this instru-
ment? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. You saw her execute her name, or write her
name on that paper you mean to say?
A. I did.
Q. Isn't it a fact that the instrument was handed
to you and she acknowledged that she had signed
her name to it?
A. The instrument wasn't brought to me at all,
I went to it.
Q. Where did you find it?
A. In Ripinski's store.
Q. In Haines?
A. No, the postoffice at Chilkat.
Q. Who were present?
A. Why, a minister by the name of Rogers, and
Joe Carr, and Mr. Ripinski and myself is all I know
of — everybody was in there to get their mail.
Q. How do you know Mr. Fay wasn't there at
that time?
442 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Well, because he wasn't, is all I know.
Q. I asked you how you knew he wasn't there
— you said everj^body was there — how do you know
he wasn't?
A. Mr. Fay wasn't in the country.
Q. How do you know he wasn't?
A. He couldn't have been in the country with-
out having charge of the store, could he?
Q. How do you know he wasn't in Chilkat at that
time — you didn't see everybody there, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have no independent recollection of any
one man who came into that store that day?
A. Which store?
Q. In the store, sir, where you executed this deed
as a witness?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— He didn't say it was ex-
ecuted in the store; he said in the postoffice.
By Mr. LYONS. — You said in Ripinski's store,
didn't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Baldwin, you saw a great many
people in that store that day, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How^ many?
A. Well, I wasn't keeping count of them.
Q. Great many, you said-?
A. There was probably two or three hundred
natives around there at the tune.
Q. Just confine your attention for a while to the
whites — how many white people were there?
G. W, H inch man et al. 443
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Well, probably eight or ten white people may
have called for their mail.
Q. How do you know that Harry Fay didn't come
there that day and call for his mail?
A. Well, I can't tell you any better than I have.
Q. You can be honest and say you don't know,
can't you? A. I know he wasn't there.
Q. Well, how do you know^?
A. Because he didn't come on the steamer until
after that date.
Q. How do you know he didn't?
A. Because there wasn't any steamers running
then.
Q. How do you know but what he went over from
Haines to Chilkat?
A. Well, he wouldn't be apt to be tarrying in
Haines; there wasn't any place to stay.
Q. I'm not asking what he w^ould be apt to do
—I'm asking you as to your knowledge as to
whether or not Fay was there at Chilkat.
A. No, sir, he wasn't.
Q. And you positively swear, he was not?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And you're as positive of that as anything
you have sworn to in this case?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. And you can't remember one individual who
was there ?
A. I already told you two or three.
Q. Who were they?
444 Solomon Rijnnsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Minister Rogers, and Joe Carr and Al James,
and Bipinski and myself, and others I didn't know.
Q. How did you know^ but Fay was one of them?
A. Well, there was people living at Pyramid
Harbor —
Q. Never mind; how did you know it — you say
you didn't know who the}^ were; how do you know
they were people living at Pj^ramid Harbor?
A. I could go on and name who lived over there.
Q. I asked you, sir, whether you know who the
other five men were who were there on that occasion
and got their mail.
A. I didn't say they were there on that occasion.
Q. I beg your pardon, sir, you did.
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Didn't you say, sir, just a moment ago there
were ten white people there the day that instrument
was executed?
A. No, sir, I didn't intend to if I did.
Q. How^ many were there there?
A. I said eight or ten got their mail at the post-
office; that many w^hite men around there got their
mail.
Q. How many got their mail that day?
A. Five is all that I know of.
Q. Did you count the others that were around
there?
A. I didn't stay there all the time; I had busi-
ness.
Q. How do you know Harry Fay mightn't have
come and got his mail while you were out?
G. W. Einchman et al. 445
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. He might have hid in the bushes somewhere;
I don't know.
Q. You said you didn't know how many other
men could have got in the postoffice and got their
mail because you had business and didn't stay there?
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, how do you know Harry Fay didn't go
in there that day? A. Well, because he didn't.
Q. How do you know — do you know he didn't?
A. Well, I don't hardly know how to explain
myself — he didn't get there until after that.
Q. You mean you didn't meet him until after
that?
A. Well, I'll say that then — I didn't meet him
until after that time.
Q. That's the reason you assign for saying he
didn't get there until after the date of the execution
of this instrument? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At the time you signed this instrument you
say 3'Ou didn't know how much land was included
or described in the instrument?
A. No, not at that time — not right then.
Q. And nobody said anything about how much
was included or intended to be conveyed?
A. Not right then; no, sir.
Q. Well, I'm asking you right then?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the terms of the instrument itself didn't
convey any information to your mind as to how
much was conveyed?
446 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimon}^ of G. A. Baldwin.")
Objected to as immaterial; the deed is the best
evidence.
A. Just as the deed reads.
Q. I'm not asking you for how the deed reads —
I'm asking you if you derived any further informa-
tion as to the amount of land conveyed, by the read-
ing of that deed — I can read it as well as you can?
A. I understood it was a tract of land touching
the Mission on the north.
Q. The Mission is divided from this land by a
line then, is it?
A. There is a fence there; yes, sir.
Q. Well, now, how much land adjoins the Mis-
sion on the north?
Objected to as immaterial and not proper cross-
examination.
A. I couldn't say.
Q. In fact you couldn't get any information as
to how much land was sought to be conveyed by that
instrument, could you? A. No, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and argumentative.
Q. Mr. Baldwin, when did you have the first
conversation with Mrs. Dickinson about the amount
of land conveyed by her to Ripinski?
A. Well, she came into the store quite often, and
was asking me questions about it.
Q. You stated on direct examination to Mr. Jen-
nings that you onh^ knew one time that you talked
to her about it, and now you claim she came in and
talked to you several times?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 447
(Testinion}^ of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. I don't think 3'0ii understood it. I said she
onl}^ mentioned the sixteen acres to me once.
Q. How did she come to talk to you about that?
A. I was the only white man in the store at the
time; that is, she was in to see all the time, and she
spoke to me about parting with this land —
Q. Said she had parted with her land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long was that after she sold the land?
A. There was quite a little talk — it was two or
three weeks after; there was quite a little trouble
over the matter I think at first.
Q. With whom?
A. The people around the Mission there.
Q. A good deal of trouble between her and Rip-
inski about it, wasn't there?
A. Yes, sir, I believe there was.
Q. And he refused to pay her a portion of the
purchase price, didn't he?
A. No, sir, I don't think so.
Q. Do you know whether he did or not — I'm not
interested in what you think?
A. Well, I think he paid it all to her.
Q. Didn't you just state, sir, that there was some
trouble between her and him about the purchase
price, after the execution of the deed?
A. No.
Q. I would like to have the stenographer read
back there a line or two. (Referee reads back.)
He had some trouble about the purchase price, didn't
he? A. Yes, sir, I think so.
448 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. What was it she had the trouble about now?
A. Well, I'll take that back; I don't think she
had trouble with him; I think it was her son.
Q. Mrs. Dickinson had trouble with her son*?
A. No, Ripinski did.
Q. What about — this transfer?
A. Well, I suppose it was about that.
Q. Don't you know, Mr. Baldwin?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Then, why do you say you suppose so?
A. Well, I have answered your other question
now.
Q. Now, you say that the trouble that occurred
down at the Mission was the cause of the conversa-
tion between you and Mrs. Dickinson respecting her
transfer to Ripinski — is that right — as to how much
land she conveyed to Ripinski?
A. Well, that might have brought it up; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know, sir, what brought it up?
A. Well, she would be talking to me and telling
me —
Q. How^ did she come to ask you about it?
A. I think I told you that once.
Q. Well, explain it again, will you?
A. Well, she was trading at the store, and she
would come in and talk to me about things that
was going on.
Q. And she volunteered to you this piece of in-
formation, that she had sold sixteen acres to Rip-
inski? A. I might have asked her about it.
Q. Do you know whether you did or not?
G. W. Hiucliman et al. 449
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. I should think I did.
Q. You think you did? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when did this conversation take place?
A. She was probably in the store every day af-
ter the deed was signed; I don't know just when we
had the talk.
Q. Well, about when did it take place?
A. In December.
Q. December of 1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And she told you she had sold sixteen acres
to Ripinski? A. Fifteen, I think it was.
Q. Did she attempt to describe to you the bound-
aries of that land or where it laid?
A. No, sir, she did not.
Q. She didn't state whether she owned any land
over there at Haines or not, did she?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did she state about that matter?
A. Well, she said she owned sixteen acres over
there and sold one to Mr. Dalton.
Q. Did she attempt to give you any description
of the land she sold, or owned over there ?
A. No, she said the Dalton acre was out at one
corner.
Q. And she told you she had sold sixteen acres
over there then — did she tell you how she acquired
it? A. From her husband.
Q. Did she tell you how she had acquired it?
A. Well, it was him that took charge of the
Northwest Trading Company over there, wasn't it?
Q. I'm asking you?
450 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. The Northwest Trading Company gave the
post up, and I don't know whether he gave a deed
for it or not, but they were living there and they
gave it up.
Q. And she told you he had run the store there,
did she'?
A. Not only her, but other people too.
Q. I'm asking what Mrs. Dickinson told you —
you understand me very well, sir. Now, as a matter
of fact, she never told you how much land she had
before she sold to Ripinski?
A. I never had any occasion to ask her.
Q. And as a matter of fact, when she made this
conveyance to Ripinski, all the land Ripinski was
claiming under that deed was wilderness — don't you
know that to be a fact?
Objected to as not cross-examination.
A. No, sir.
Q. You know, sir, there was no more than one
acre, down near the beach there, that had been im-
proved, don't you*?
A. What do you call wilderness?
Q. I call it wilderness when the ground is in its
virgin state and hadn't been improved in any way.
A. Well, all the clearing that was done was the
garden there and around where Ripinski 's store
now is.
Q. Not over an acre of ground, was it?
A. The largest trees had been cut down and —
Q. Not over an acre of ground had been cleared,
had it? A. That's all I know.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 451
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. And you know it to be a fact there wasn't
any more than that, don't you? A. No, sir.
Q. You're not as interested in knowing any facts
in this case adverse to Ripinski as those in favor of
him, are you?
A. If 3'ou want an answer, there might have been
a thousand acres cleared there and I wouldn't know
it.
Q. Why, of course — you weren't looking for any-
thing of that kind, were you?
A. No, sir, I wasn't.
Q. But you do say that Harry Fay couldn't have
been in Haines when you signed that deed as a wit-
ness, notwithstanding the fact he swore he was
there ?
A. I don't know about that — if he was there I
didn't know anything about it.
Q. If he swears that to be a fact, you don't want
to swear positively that it isn't true, do you — all
you swear is that if he was there you didn't know it?
A. "Well, I can swear he wasn't in the store at
the time — he had never been in my sight until after
that.
Q. I said Haines — I mean Chilkat, Mr. Baldwin?
A. My answer is just the same.
Q. You won't swear positively that Harry Fay
wasn't in Chilkat the very day this instrmnent was
sisrned bv vou as a witness?
A. He wasn't in my sight that day.
Q. I didn't ask 3^ou that, sir; I ask you to answer
the question whether or not you're willing to swear
452 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
that Harry Fay wasn't in Cliilkat the day you wit-
nessed this instrument?
A. Well, no, I won't swear to that exactly; I can
swear he didn't come to take charge of the store
until after.
Q. He came subsequently for the purpose of tak-
ing charge of the store? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you say you saw a portion of the con-
sideration pass on the day of the transfer, the execu-
tion of this deed ; how much money did you see pass ?
A. A hundred dollars.
Q. In what — twenty dollar gold pieces?
A. No, I think more of it was in silver.
Q. About how^ much in silver, do you think?
A. Well, I don't remember as to that fact.
Q. I asked you how much in silver, and you said
you thought it was more silver — more than fifty
dollars in silver, was it?
A. I wouldn't say as to that. I know he counted
out a hundred dollars.
Q. You said a while ago you thought it was over
half silver — you wish to still stick to that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you count that money yourself?
A. I did not.
Q. You didn't take careful account of it as he
handed it over, did you?
A. No, I didn't touch it.
Q. You don't know, as a matter of fact, how
much money was paid over at that time?
G. W. Hincliman et al. 453
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. He counted a hundred dollars to her — I was
just sitting there glancing at it— I supposed there
was a hundred dollars.
Q. Then you don't know of your own knowledge
how much there was there ?
A. No, sir, I don't. I know she received a hun-
dred dollars.
Q. I'm not asking you that — I'm asking you how
much money was actualh^ paid at the time of the
transfer — you don 't know yourself, do you ?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And you don't know as a matter of fact
whether it was paid in gold, paper, or silver
A. No, sir.
Q. You mean to admit, then, that you don't know
whether it was paid in gold, silver, or paper?
A. I will — no, sir.
Q. And yet you said a moment ago that over half
of it was paid in silver? A. Well, since —
That's all, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS. — Have you any interest in
this controversy, Mr. Baldwin?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. Do you own any property in Haines?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Did Sol. Ripinski promise to give you any
interest in that land for your testimony?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he promise to pay you anything for your
testimony? A. No, sir, he hasn't.
454 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. How long have you lived in Chilkat?
A. Ten 3'ears this last March, I think.
Q. How large a place was Chilkat on December
2,1897?
A. I mean ten years this September, Mr. Jen-
nings.
Q. All right — how large a place was Chilkat
then?
A. Well, about all the natives in the country,
that was the only place to buy anything —
Q. How many white people lived at Chilkat?
A. Well, there was probably — ^the storekeepers
was about the only ones that lived right at Chilkat.
Q. How many of them were there ?
A. Well, there was but three people there.
Q. Well, three white men, storekeepers —
A. And about eight white people got their mail
there.
Q. About eleven altogether?
A. Well, more than that possibly.
Q. Well, how many?
A. Well, the Humbert Expedition got their mail
there at the time ; there was quite a few men in that.
Q. Where had Harry Fay been working up to
the time he came to relieve you at Chilkat ?
A. I only know what he told me about that.
Q. Did you ever see him before he came to re-
lieve you? A. No, sir.
Q. You have seen him since quite often?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The only persons you noticed at that trans-
G. W. Hliichman et al. 455
(Testiinon}" of G. A. Baldwin.)
action, the witnessing of that deed, were the five
people you have mentioned ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were expecting at that time Harr.y Fay
to come up there to relieve you, weren't you?
A. No, sir.
Q. He came up, you say, to relieve you?
A. He did come and relieve me, yes.
Q. You were in charge of the store at the time
you did sign this deed as a witness?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you ever have any conversation with
Harry Fay at all to the effect that this deed had been
written up afterwards, after you had been called in
to sign it — after the date of it?
A. There is no doubt but what I did.
Q. Well, you don't understand me — did you ever
have an}" conversation with Harry Fay in which you
told him that the deed wasn 't executed on the day it
purports to have been executed, but was executed
and dated back — did you ever admit any such a
thing to him? A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. The witnessing of this deed happened at the
time you were in sole charge of the store at Chilkat,
as I understand you?
Objected to as leading.
A. It was.
Q. How long after you witnessed that deed was
it that Harry Fay came up and took charge of the
store?
A. Well, I should think eight or ten days — maybe
not that much; I know he came unexpectedly one
night about nine o'clock, in the dark.
456 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
R ecross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — There were a good many men,
you say — the Perry-Humbert Expedition were at
Haines and Chilkat, got their mail at Chilkat at that
time ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how man}^ men were there, Mr. Bald-
win?
A. I don't know how many were in that expedi-
tion.
Q. Twenty-five, thirty, or forty ?
A. Yes, sir, I think that many ; that was the only
postoffice there was in that part of the country.
Q. You were a witness for Sol. Ripinski before,
were you — when this matter was up before?
A. I was subpoenaed but was never a witness.
Q. Subpoenaed by Mr. Ripinski, were you?
A. By both sides.
Q. Are you sure about that — by both sides?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were served with that subpoena?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was stated in the subpoena?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incom-
petent.
Q. What did the subpoena state — ^how do you
know — weren't the subpoenas issued to you b}" the
same side of the case?
A. Well, it was different people that gave them
to me.
Q. It was the U. S. Marshal that gave them to
you, wasn't it?
G. W. liinchman et al. 457
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. I think the United States Marshal gave me
Eipinski's, yes, sir.
Q. Who gave you the other one ?
A. I don't know as to that.
Q. It wasn't any of these i^laintiffs, was it — none
of the plaintiffs in this case, was it ?
A. I think it was Mr. Lane.
Q. Mr. Lane is away from Haines at this time,
isn't he?
A. He seemed to have changed to the other side
of the question —
Q. Can't you respond to my question? He is
away from Haines at this time, is he not?
A. He was when I left this morning ; yes.
Q. And has been away for some time, hasn't he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have been pretty friendly with Sol.
Rlpinski right along, haven't you?
A. Well, I have been friendly with everybody
about the Mission, I guess.
Q. You think you're friendly with everybody?
A. I hope so.
Q. You're not as well acquainted with other
people about the Mission, though, as you are with
iSol? A. I ought to be, better.
Q. You met Sol. about seven or eight years ago ?
A. About ten years ago.
Q. And have known him ever since?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have no interest in this case?
A. Not a particle.
458 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. And you have a lot in Haines —
A. Yes, sir —
Q. — in the disputed tract, too?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I call your attention now to —
A. I can describe it — I don't know the number
of it on there.
Q. I call your attention to Plaintiffs' Exliibit
No. 1 and ask you if jou can point out on there your
lot?
A. It is in Block 5 — it should be Baldwin, Falk-
iier and Dryden — it is in my name.
Q. You own that lot, do you?
A. The three of us together; yes, sir.
Q. Where are your partners now?
A. One of them is at Haines and one at Klukwan.
Q. How long have you owned that lot?
A. AYell, I think it has been a year anyway.
Q. And Mr. Ripinski has promised you that in
ease he gets a joatent for this tract he will give you a
deed to your lot ?
A. No, sir; I was asked to contribute to help
support this case and I didn't pay enough for the
lot to care anything about it.
Q. You don't care anything about it, then?
A. No, sir.
Q. Then as far as 3^ou're concerned, it is im-
material which side prevails in this suit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, you didn't think enough of the lot as
an investment to pay anything out on it?
G. W. Hinclnnan et al. 459
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. I paid three dollars for m}^ interest, and I
didn't intend to pay ten dollars in order to protect
three.
Q. That's the only reason why you didn't take
part with the plaintiffs, was because the lot wasn't
of sufficient value to justif}^ it?
A. I have always thought that Riplnski would
win it in the long run.
Q. You have always thought Ripinski would win
in the long nm, have you ? A.I have ; yes, sir.
Q. You thought it would take a pretty long run,
didn't you?
A. I don't know about that either.
Q. You know, Mr. Baldwin, that two suits have
already been tried about this matter and your theory
has been disputed by the courts and juries every
time? A. I thought it was four suits.
Q. And notwithstanding that fact, you as a deep-
sea lawyer think he will win out in the long run?
Objected to as immaterial and argumentative.
A. As I said before, I haven't any interest either
way.
Q. You said a while ago you thought he would
win out in the long run; he was beaten in four or
five short iims, and you think he will win out in the
long run — now, you know very well, sir, that you
have an interest in this case, haven't you?
A. Well, I have told you; you can prove it now
if you wish.
Q. And you know also, sir, that you have a deal
460 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimon}^ of G. A. Baldwin.)
with Eipinski tliat in case he gets a patent jou mil
get a deed to your lot, don't you"? A. No, sir.
Q. Still you believe he will prevail in the end, do
you ?
A. That's hard to tell; that's for the Court to
decide.
Q. I should hope so — not for 3^ou.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You say you're a part
owner in Lot 5, Block 5, you and Dryden and Falk-
ner own that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the deed is in your name?
A. I had it made out myself, yes, and they put
it in my name.
Q. And who was it that came to you and asked
you to contribute ten dollars to this conunon sinking-
fund for these jumpers? A. Nobody.
Q. Nobody mentioned the sum of ten dollars —
did they ask you for an assessment?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who? A. I think it was Mr. Martin.
Q. You're not one of the plaintiffs in this case?
A. No, sir ; my name isn't on there, I don't think.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — The reason you didn't con-
tribute your assessment when you were requested by
Mr. Martin was because you didn't think the lot was
of sufficient value to justify it ?
A. That's the very reason.
Q. If you thought Mr. Ripinski should win and
G. W. H inch man et al. 461
(Testimony of G. A. Bakhviu.)
would win in the long run, why did you buy an
interest in that lot in the first place ?
A. AVell, we gave it to help out the fellow we
bought the lot from was all.
Q. Why didn't you give him the three dollars if
you thought Ripinski had the best right to the land?
A. He agreed to pay it back; we took it more
as security.
Q. Then 3^ou don't own that lot at all?
A. Yes, sir, we do.
Q. If you took it as security you don't own it?
A. We had the deed made out in our names.
Q. Don't you know that if a deed is taken as
security it is nothing more than a mortgage?
A. Well, we own that lot now.
Q. You never foreclosed on it, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was taken as security in the first place,
wasn't it?
A. Well, it was understood between ourselves.
Q. It was given as security for three dollars,
your interest?
A. No, we bought the lot from him, didn't care
whether we had it or not.
Eedirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— AYho was the man you
bought the lot from?
A. I forget his last name — Jesse Craig, I think it
Avas.
Q. Man by the name of Jesse Craig — and Dryden
and Falkner were in with you?
4G2 Solomon Ripinski/ vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers. )
A. Yes, sir; we offered to sell out to liim several
times.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I now wish to read into
the record the deposition of F. A. Rogers, the other
subscribing witness to the deed already in evidence.
Just note there, Mr. Gillette, that this testimony is
admitted by stipulation subject to objections to be
made at this time.
[Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers, for the Defend-
ant.]
Deposition of FRANKLIN A. ROGERS, a wit-
ness for the defendant:
Direct Interrogatories.
(Propounded by R. W. JENNINGS, Defendant's
Attorney.)
Q. State your name, age, and residence.
A. Franklin A. Rogers; age fifty-four; No. 569
Williams Ave., Station B, Portland, Oregon.
Q. Were you ever a resident of Haines, Alaska,
and if so how long and when did you reside there?
A. Yes, May 8th, 1896, to last of November, 1896 ;
April, 1897, to January, 1898; off and on from Jan-
uary, 1898, to May, 1898.
Q. Do you know one Sarah Dickinson and one
Sol. Ripinski, residents of Haines or Chilkat,
Alaska? A. Yes, since May, 1896.
Q. Are you acquainted with any land at said
Haines, Alaska, known as the Dickinson tract or
claim? A. Yes.
Q. If your answer be yes, state the circumstances
G. W. Hinchman et ah 463
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
and extent of your information relative to the loca-
tion and identity of said land or claim'?
A. When I first went to Haines in 1896 to re-
build the Mission, I was informed by Mr. Warne —
Plaintiffs object to the answer on the ground that
it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and
hearsay.
— and Miss Willard, the native interpreter, Mr.
Clark and others that the two buildings and ground
belonged to Mrs. Dickinson and was the old trading-
post while Mr. Dickinson was alive, and that they
lived and had a store in the building next the Mission
and the second one was the warehouse, and all the
time tliat I was there I never heard it called by any
other name than the Dickinson property. When I
returned in 1897 to take charge of the Mission and
property as superintendent and missionary in Mr.
Warne 's absence, Mr, Jack Dalton told me he had
bought an acre joining the Mission property on the
north and the water front on the east, and if I wished
I could have the use of said land for a garden if I
wished to. (See sketch for location on separate
sheet.) And Mrs. Dickinson and Mr. Warne and
others told me that the acre belonged to Dalton.
Q. State if you know the area, approximate length
and breadth of the same?
A. Mrs. Dickinson and her son William told me —
By Mr. LYONS. — Now, Mr. Jennings, I don't see
how I am to get my objection in unless you finish
reading the answer and allow me to object before it is
taken down.
464 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Well, it is stipulated then,
that a motion to strike will have the same effect as if
it were an objection before the answer was made.
That will serve the same purpose.
By Mr. LYONS.— Very well.
A. Mrs. Dickinson and her son William told me it
extended from the north line of the Mission, north
to Blind Isaac's less the corner one acre that had been
sold to Dalton, and from the water on the east, thence
to the west to make fifteen acres including Dalton 's.
I never took the trouble to measure it, but went over
with Sol. Ripinski what he said included fifteen acres.
The distances on the waterfront are, Dalton 's 110
feet; then 175 feet to Blind Isaac's. Why I know
this, I have measured from the big rock on the beach
at mid-tide which is on the north line of the Mission,
north to help the natives to locate their homes so as
to have them recorded for some two thousand feet
north, for Jack, Jim, Paddy, Joel, Dennis, Henry No.
1, Phillips, Charley Joe, Henry No. 2, Phillips, and
Dick all natives.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer for the reason
that the same is incompetent irrelevant and imma-
terial, and hearsay. And for the further reason that
the answer fails to indicate the time when Mrs. Dick-
inson stated to the witness that she claimed the prem-
ises which he has described.
Q. (Int. No. 7.) State, if you know, whether or
not said land or claim lies adjacent to the waterfront,
and if it does what is the approximate extent along
the same ?
G. W. Hinchinan et aJ. 465
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
A. Yes, to tidewater, two hundred and eighty-five
feet from big rock to Blind Isaac 's. (The land would
have to run from tidewater west about 2,500 feet to
make fifteen acres.) Stricken.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer for the reason
that it is speculative, argumentative, and does not
show that the witness knows anything about what
land w^as actually conveyed by Mrs. Dickinson to Rip-
inski.
Q. (Int. No. 8.) State, if you know, whether or
not said land or claim lies adjacent to the Haines Mis-
sion ground, and if it does, what is its length along
sad ground ?
A. Yes, the land lies north of Mission and joins
on to the Mission. The Dalton trail crosses the south
edge of said land; (and in answer No. 7, about 2,500
feet to make the fifteen acres.) Stricken.
Move to strike the answer for the reason that all the
information which the witness states he has concern-
ing the land conveyed to the defendant is based on
hearsay, and consequently any description he gives of
the land is necessarily based on hearsay. It is there-
fore, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. (Int. No. 9.) Do you know whether or not
said Dickinson tract or claim was ever fenced?
A. Do not know whether it ever was all fenced,
but a portion on the east end had been used for a gar-
den and was fenced when I first went there in 1896,
and it had been fenced for a ways on the north line
I should judge by the way the small timbers and brush
had been cut and there had been some slashing done
4}66 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
near the line of the north fence of Mission, but by
whom I do not know as it was before my time there.
I should judge the fence west of the garden and on the
north line had been brush and poles.
Move to strike the answer for the reason it shows
the witness knows nothing as to the ownership of the
fence or who built the same and there is nothing in
evidence at this time to indicate it was ever owned
or claimed by Mrs. Dickinson or owned or claimed by
her alleged grantee, Ripinski.
Q. (Int. No. 10.) If your answer be that it was,
please state if you know when, by whom, with what
kind of a fence, and what part, was fenced?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Witness refers to answer
No. 9.
Q. (Int. No. 11.) Were you ever concerned in
any business transaction relative to said Dickinson
tract or claim ? A. Yes.
Q. (Int. No. 12.) If you answer that you were,
please state what it was, when and with whom; also
whether or not at or about the time of the said trans-
fer the said Dickinson tract or claim was definitely
described and pointed out to you by anyone — if so, by
whom %
A. First with Mrs. Dickinson some time in the
latter part of November, 1897, to see if she would sell
the same to Sol. Ripinski. Mrs. Dickinson only
stated to me what she claimed, and that the Colonel
had made her an offer two or three times but she
thought she should have more money than offered her.
Then again in December, about the 9th or 10th after
G. W. Hinchman et al. 467
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
returning from Skagway and Dyea with the Colonel, I
saw her again and reported her price to Ripinski and
he decided to take the place. I then went to her, Mrs.
Dickinson and went over to the store with me and the
papers were made out and signed by Mrs. Dickin-
son and I counted out the money to her and for her
at her request to see that all was right. There was
a dispute about a five dollars of an account and I went
to her home with her, and she explained the matter ■
to me and after I had a talk with the Colonel he gave
me the five dollars and I went to Mrs. Dickinson's
home and gave the five dollars to her. I was over at
Chilkat, I think, the 11th, to see the Colonel about a
store building to be built in Dyea, and the Colonel
says: "Mrs. Dickinson brought the money back and
went away and left it laying there, ' ' showing me where
she left it. I then went to her house, and she Mrs.
Dickinson said Billy, her son, had come home and told
her she ought to have had fifty dollars more for the
place. I returned to the Colonel and stated the mat-
ter to him and he gave me the extra fifty dollars.
I took it and the original amount and paid it all over
to Mrs. Dickinson and she told me that was all she
had left of the store, building and ground and
thanked me for helping her to sell it and stated again
there was fifteen acres less one she sold to Dalton.
The 12th of December the colonel gave me the deed
and two dollars to have it recorded at Dyea when I
went up there the 13th and Judge Smith had the
deed recorded and it was sent back to the colonel.
468 Solovion Ripiiiskij vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer of the witness
on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and im-
material and hearsay; and for the further reason
there is absolutely no evidence in this record to show
that Mrs. Dickinson ever had fifteen acres to convey
and her mere statement of ownership of that amount
of land is self-serving and no evidence of her interest
in any land whatsoever which she could convey.
Plaintiffs also move to strike that portion of the
witness' testimony with reference to the negotiations
of sale for the reason that the same is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial, and if the deed is of any
value whatever, the negotiations, if any, w^ere merged
in the deed.
By Mr. JENNING^S.— Oh, Mr. Lyons, I see there
is more to that answer — I didn't complete it. This
is the balance of it — answer to Interrogatory No.
12—
A. — About December 21st I was down to the
Mission and Mr. Ripinski had put some goods into
the store building and Billy Dickinson had broken the
lock of the door and had taken possession of the prop-
erty with a Winchester as one of the heirs, and it
was reported to me. I went down and had a long
talk with Billy and he told me that he would shoot
the first one that offered to take his rights. He
stated that all the fractions that had been staked out
including Mr. Warne's, my piece, and part of Miss
Campbell's (nee Manning), and some claims west of
Warne and some east of my claim was on the Dick-
inson estate and that they would have to pay him his
G. W. Flinch man et al. 469
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
share as one of the heirs, but Spooner's building was
on Dalton's acre. He told me as near as he could
where the land lay.
After advising him what to do he took my advice
and took his gun and went home to Chilkat, and the
next day I went over and Billy came to the Colonel
as I had advised and stated his terms and the Colonel
paid his (Billy's) price and I witnessed before U. S.
Commissioner Smith in Ripinski's office.
By Mr. LYONS. — My objection will all apply and
follow the answer as completed.
Q. (Int. No. 13.) At the time of your business
transaction or connection with said land, do you
know whether one W. W. Warne claimed any part
of the same?
A. Mr. W. W. Warne had a piece staked out (and,
on file at Dyea, but later in the month, about Decem-
ber 14th or 15th), but I did not think at that time
that the fifteen acres run back that far west as I never
gave it a thought nor figured out how far the Dick-
inson claim w^ould run west from the beach to make
fifteen acres. Said Warne 's claim had a notice on
it by himself some time in November, and I staked
out two hundred by two hundred east of Warne 's and
put up a notice December 7th and had on record
December 18th at Dyea.
Q. (Int. No. 14.) If you answer that he did,
please state if you know, what part of same he
claimed, and whether you had any conversation with
him in relation to the same.
470 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
By Mr. LYONS.— Just let the record show that I
move to strike the last answer of the witness as in-
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. (To Int. No. 14.) Mr. Warne was about a
hundred and twent.y-five feet west of Mission fence,
thence west 150 feet thence north 200 feet thence
east 150 feet, thence south 200 feet to starting point.
I had not up to that time that I can recall told him
that Ripinski had bought the Ripinski property.
Plaintiff moves to strike the answer on the same
ground as the preceding answer.
Q. (Int. No. 14.) State whether or not you in-
formed said Warne of 3^our transaction or connec-
tion with said Dickinson tract or claim ?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— There is no answer to that
but it and the following question are answered to-
gether.
Q. (Int. No. 16.) If you answer that you did,
please state fully the information given to him and
the time of the same.
A. (To Ints. No. 15 and 16.) When I returned
from Dyea December 19th, I told Mr. Warne that I
had bought Mrs. Dickinson's right for Sol Ripinski
before I went to Dyea, the 13th of the month.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as incompe-
tent, irrelevant and immaterial and there is no evi-
dence to show that he bought any such rights from
Mrs. Dickinson or that she had any rights to convey
to any property except what is now actuall}^ occupied
by the defendant Ripinski and not in controversy in
this case.
G. W. Hindi man et al. 471
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
Q. (Int. No. 17.) State whether or not .you ever
claimed any part of the said Dickinson tract or
claim ?
A. As stated in No. 13, I had 200x200 feet, but
had never stopped to measure up to see if it was on
the fifteen acres. I run east from Warne 's stake 200
feet, thence north 200 feet, thence west 200 feet,
thence to Warne 's northeast stake, then down his
south line 200 feet to starting point.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as incompe-
tent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. (Int. No. 18.) If you answer that you did,
please state how much, and where it lies with refer-
ence to the portion of the Dickinson land claimed
by the said Warne.
By Mr. JENNING^S. — This seems to have been
answered in No. 17, as there is no answer to No. 18 at
all.
By Mr. LYONS.— Is No. 19 there?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Yes, I'll read right on.
Q. (Int. No. 19.) State whether or not you are
acquainted with Mrs. Campbell, nee Manning, of
Haines Mission, Alaska ? A. Yes.
Q. (Int. No. 20.) If you answer that you are,
please state whether or not you ever informed her of
your connection with said Dickinson land claim or
tract.
A. Miss Manning wished me to stake out a piece
for her north of my piece and I started north from
my N. E. stake run two hundred feet north, thence
west 200 feet, thence south 200 feet to Mr. Warne 's
472 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
northeast corner, thence east 200 feet to starting
point. I had told Miss Manning I had bought Mrs.
Dickinson's property for Sol. Ripinski when I had
made the deal for Mrs. Dickinson and Ripinski.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer for the reason
that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. (Int. No. 21.) If your answer to the last
above interrogatory be 3^es, please state when and
what that information was.
A. After I had been round the tract, and Billy
Dickinson had been with me, I told Mrs. Campbell
(nee Manning) that about half of her 200 feet and
all of my 200 feet, and Mr. Warne's, Miss McPher-
son's and four or five other claims relatives of Mr.
Warne, Avere on the fifteen acres Mrs. Dickinson
claimed and had sold to Sol. Ripinski, and at this
time I told Mr. Warne we weren't in it as the Colonel
could claim the whole business, and also told Miss
McPherson that was there at the time her piece came
inside the Colonel's claim, and also Al James and one
other party I told the same.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer on the ground
that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and
merely an opinion of the witness stated to somebody
else concerning his views as to the ownership of the
ground — in no way affects any of the issues in this
case.
Q. (Int. No. 22.) Do you know whether or not
the said Mrs. Campbell (By Mr. Jennings: "Owns,"
I think it should be there, Mr. Lyons) any part of the
Dickinson tract or claim?
G. W. Hinchman et ciL 473
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
A. Yes, about 85x200 or the south half less about
fifteen feet. Her eighty-five feet runs north from
Warne's northeast corner 85 feet, thence east 200
feet, thence south 85 feet, thence 200 feet to starting
point.
Plaintiff moves to strike the answer for the rea-
sons assigned in his motion to strike the last preced-
ing answer.
Q. (Int. No. 23.) If you answer that she did
claim some part of the same, please state the location
of her claim with reference to the location of the
claim of said Warne.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— There is no answer to that
one.
Q. (Int. No. 24.) State an}i:hing further that
you know relative to the identity, position, and de-
scription of said Dickinson claim or tract ?
A. There was no buildings put on any of the land
claimed by Mrs. Dickinson when I run the wire fence
and when Rapinski made his claim known and run
his wire around the entire piece including all of
Warne's, mine, and Miss Manning's, Al James and
one other west of my piece and some west of Mr.
Warne. Mr. Ripinski warned us all not to put any-
thing on said land as it was his, but told me to let my
piece be as it was and that I should have it, and to
tell Miss Manning the same about what was on his
property. Spooner was building on Dalton's acre
at the time. I did no more on my piece for I was
satisfied it was on the fifteen acres after figuring it
out, and left trusting the Colonel to do as he agreed
474 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
about my 200x200 feet, but the others paid no atten-
tion to what the Colonel had told them, but kept im-
proving and putting buildings upon said land and
fencing the same after having been warned off by the
Colonel.
Plaintiffs move to strike all of the witness' an-
swer excepting the admission on his part that Rip-
inski agreed to protect him in the land that he
claimed or the portion of this tract he claimed for
the reason that all of the rest of the answer is incompe-
tent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Cross-interrogatories on Behalf of the Plaintiffs.
Q. (Int. 1.) Did you have a conversation with
Mrs. Dickinson on the 9th, 10th or 11th of December,
1897, about Ripinski buying Mrs. Dickinson's land?
If so, state that conversation.
A. Yes, and also the latter part of November.
About the time stated I closed the bargain with Mrs.
Dickinson and Sol. Ripinski on the sale and purchase
of what is known as the Dickinson property join-
ing Haines Mission on the north and lying between
the Mission and Blind Isaac's. Mrs. Dickinson after
the final bargain was made asked me to go with her
and see that all was right and to see that the money
was collected. I went with her to Ripinski 's store
and she signed the deed and I counted the money out
in her lap for her. There was a misunderstanding
about five dollars on account and I went home with
Mrs. Dickinson and she explained to me about the five
dollars and then I went to the Colonel and told him
how I found the matter and he gave me the five dol-
G. W. Hinchman et al. 475
(Deposition of Franklin A. Eogers.)
lars and I went and gave it to Mrs. Dickinson. I
think this was the 9th — I believe it was. The 11th I
w^as over to Chilkat and Ripinski said, "Well, Rog-
ers, Mrs. Dickinson brought back the money and left
it there," designating where she, Mr6. Dickinson had
left it. I went and saw her, and she said Billy her
son had come home and told her she should have had
fifty dollars more. I reported the same to Ripinski.
He gave me the fifty dollars, and I took it and the
original and went to Mrs. Dickinson's house, counted
out the first amount to her, then the fifty dollars
extra, for which she thanked me and said that was
all she had left of the store, buildings and the fifteen
acres of ground and I advised her not to let Billy
or anyone have one cent of the amount, but to use it
carefully and make it last as long as possible. Mrs.
Dickinson claimed there was fifteen acres less one
she had sold to Jack Dalton.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as not respon-
sive to the question, incompetent, irrelevant and im-
material.
Q. (Int. No. 2.) On the 21st or 22d of Decem-
ber, 1897, did you with the aid of a native named
Willy run a wire fence around your lot and Mrs.
Campbell's (nee Miss Manning) and also Mrs.
Rogers' lot and part way around the lot of W. W.
Warne ?
476 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
A. Yes, around Mrs. Campbell's (nee Manning)
my own, Mrs. Rogers' and what made the east line of
Mr. Warne's.
(Accompanying said answer is a diagram thus.)
W. W. Warne
I Rogers | Manning | Mrs. Rogers !
East Line.
Q. (Int. No. 3.) Sometime between the 20th of
December, 1897, and the first of January, 1898, did
you help the defendant and Mrs. Dickinson settle
their accounts, and if so, was there at any time any
conversation about the land? If yes, state it?
A. No. After paying Mrs. Dickinson back the
original and fifty dollars extra, I had no more con-
versation with Mrs. Dickinson but did with Billy
Dickinson, her son and heir to the estate. He
showed me what he claimed and stated Mr. Warne,
mj^self. Miss Manning and west of Spooner's or
Dalton's and north of same and west of Warne's
were all on the fourteen acres left of the fifteen, and
after talking with him quite a while he said he would
go and see the colonel. Billy had taken possession
with a Winchester. I think this was about the 21st
of December. The next day I went to Chilkat, and
Billy and Ripinski came to an agreement and Rip-
inski paid Billy his price to relinquish his rights as
G. W. Hincliman et al. 477
(Deposition of Franklin A. Rogers.)
heir to the Dickinson property at Haines and I wit-
nessed it before the U. S. Commissioner who was
there at the time.
The plaintiff moves to strike the ans^ver as in-
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. (Int. No. 4.) Was that before or after the
deed from Mrs. Dickinson to the defendant, and if
you know state what day it was in December that
the deed was executed and delivered?
A. This with Billy was after I had paid his
mother the mone}^ and I took the deed to Dyea De-
cember 13th and two dollars from Ripinski to have
it recorded. Am not positive as to date of deed but
I believe it was the 9th or 10th of December.
Counsel for plaintiffs now moves to strike all of
the testimony of the witness Baldwin with refer-
ence to the transfer from Mrs. Sarah Dickinson to
the defendant Ripinski for the reason that there is
no evidence to indicate that Mrs. Dickinson ever
owmed, occupied, or possessed any premises in the
vicinity of Haines that she could convey except the
premises now occupied by the defendant Ripinski
which are not in controversy in this action.
We also move to strike all of the deposition of
the witness Rogers that has been read in evidence
for the same reason assigned in the motion to strike
Baldwin's testimony, and for the additional reason
that all of said deposition that could be considered
in any way material to the issues in this case is
based on hearsay.
478 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
[Testimony of M. Ripin, for the Defendant.]
M. RIPIN, a witness called on behalf of the de-
fendant, and being first duly sworn, testified as fol-
lows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— How do you spell your
name *? A. R-i-p-i-n.
Q. Your name was originally Ripinski, was if?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had it changed by the Court*?
A. Yes, sir, by law.
Q. Are you a brother of Sol. Ripinski, the de-
fendant? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember when your brother Sol.
Ripinski had a deal with Mrs. Sarah Dickinson, by
the terms of which certain land at Haines was con-
veyed to Sol. by Mrs. Dickinson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that land situated, if you know?
Objected to on the ground that real estate can
only be conveyed by deed, and the deed is the best
evidence as to where the land is situated.
Q. I mean at Haines, Chilkat, Skagway, or where
was it? A. At Haines.
Q. Do you know when the deed between Sol.,
your brother, and Mrs. Dickinson was made?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it? A. In December.
Q. What part of December, 1897?
A. I think it was the second day of December.
Q. What, if anything, did you do with reference
G. T]\ Hindi man et al. 479
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
to fencing any portion of the tract of land that Mrs.
Dickinson conveyed to your brother?
Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial and incom-
petent.
A. I helped — a part of it.
Q. Helped put up a fence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I call your attention to the plat marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1; and I call your attention
to the tract of land there marked "Mission," to the
south, and the tract marked "Ripinski Homestead"
to the west — A. Yes, sir.
Q. — and I want you to describe, as near as you
can, where you put that fence?
A. We put the fence right straight here.
Q. Describe it by names, points on there — don't
say "here" and "there" — here is the beach down
here, and here is Sol. Ripinski 's house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And here is Corner No. 2, and Corner No. 1?
A. Yes, sir. We fenced it off from Blind Isaac's
house, not the house but Blind Isaac's called the
Dalton Street, now, away up around and down to
the Mission.
Q. Well, did you build that fence along what is
called on here Main Street and the old trail that was
there?
Objected to as leading.
A. I don't know that but I see the fence there —
I only helped part of it on this side.
Q. You didn't build the fence along the trail
yourself? A. No, sir.
480 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Did you build the fence — now, what part of
the fence did you build?
A. I helped part of it on the side, the Blind Isaac
side.
Q. On the north side of this tract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, how far out now, did you see that
fence %
A. Well, I have seen that fence after it was done,
all around.
Q. How long after the deal between your brother
and Mrs. Dickinson was it before you began build-
ing that fence?
A. How many days you mean?
Q. Yes, sir;
A. I think it must have been eight or ten days —
I mean a few days aftei*, probably eight or ten days.
Q. Probably eight or ten days after the deal —
now, why do you say the fence was built around
there — first what kind of a fence was that ?
A. Wire fence.
Q. Well, now, Mr. Ripin, this tract, Survey No.
573 is in quite an irregular shape, you see. Did you
build the fence just exactly along the lines of this
Survey No. 573 — for instance, from Corner No. 1 to
Corner No. 3 and then to Corner No. 4 and then to
Corner No. 5 and then No. 6 and so on?
A. No, sir, we run the line right straight up.
Q. You run the line straight from Blind Isaacs ' —
A. Yes, sir, straight up the street.
Q. Away up? A. Yes, sir, up the line.
G. W. HincJuuan et al. 481
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. And what about the line that runs towards
the beach there, did you enclose the Dalton acre*?
A. We did not, no, sir.
Q. You just run up to where you considered Mrs.
Dalton 's acre would be? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And didn't fence that? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, what kind of a fence was it?
A. It was a barbed wire fence.
Q. Now, you say it was about the 8th or 10th
of December as near as you can remember when you
began that fence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Fay or anyone else at that time have
any buildings or tents or houses of any kind on that
tract of land?
A. It wasn't on there at that time.
Q. I mean excepting those two houses down on
the beach there —
A. Only them two houses which my brother is
occupying now was there — that's all.
Q. That's all that w^as on that tract of land at
all? A. That's all, yes, sir.
Q. When was the last time, Mr. Ripin, that you
saw that fence intact, that is, before it had been
broken down?
A. The last time I seen it must have been the
middle of January.
Q. Of what year? A. The year 1898.
Q. Do you remember when the Humbert Expedi-
tion landed there at Chilkat, and the people swarmed
over to Haines, some of them, Mr. Ripin?
482 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Well, I wasn't exactly there at the time they
came, I was over at Dyea.
Q. How long have you lived at Chilkat or Haines,
in that neighborhood?
A. Well, I came there about the 28th or 22d of
November, 1897, and I stayed there until the first
of January, went over- to Dyea, and then I came
back about five or six days and stayed there — about
a week longer, and then went back to Dyea again.
Q. Do you know when the rush into Porcupine
began, and people came into Haines —
A. I think that was about July or August —
Q. Of what year? A. Of the year 1898.
Q. Did that rush bring quite a number of people
to Haines?
Objected to as leading.
A. I expect so.
Move to strike the answer as giving the witness'
expectations and not a statement of fact.
Q. Did it? A. Well, I wasn't over there.
Q. You weren't there at that particular time?
A. No, I was in Dyea.
Q. Well, when did you return to Haines then?
A. I came there off and on you know, for a day
or two — •
Q. From Dyea?
A. Yes, Dyea over to Haines and Chilkat.
Q. Did you ever see that fence you helped to
build, in its unbroken state after this Porcupine
rush?
G. TF. Hindi man et al. 483
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Oh, after that I only seen one side, that's all;
where Blind Isaac's is it stood pretty good, while
the other all broke down.
Q. But that part of that fence on the north side
of this tract still remained?
A. Still remained, yes, sir.
Q. The part on the south side, on the trail, was
all broken down, wasn't it?
A. All broken down, yes, sir.
' Q. What about the part on the end of this tract,
over towards what would be the west side of this
plat, this part over here?
A. Well, I didn't go up there, I couldn't tell.
Q. You don't know whether that was broken
down or not?
A. No, I run upright there several times to see
that it was all broke down — here.
Q. You don't mean to say you ran out to see this
cross-piece out here? A. No, sir.
Q. This other piece here, you had seen intact?
A. Yes, sir, I noticed that and walked up the
beach a piece and noticed it was there yet, yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what land Mrs. Dickinson sold
to your brother? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, what was it?
Objected to for the reason that if any land was
conveyed at all the deed is the best evidence and the
only evidence that can be admitted to prove the con-
veyance of real estate.
A. Yes, sir, fifteen acres — I heard her say n\y-
self.
484 Solomon Ripinskp vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Move to strike the answer as not responsive and
hearsay.
Q. Do you know an Indian, or house of an Indian
— residence of an Indian down at Haines known as
Blind Isaac's house? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that residence — or were you fami-
liar with that residence at the time of the making
of this deal between your brother and Mrs. Dickin-
son"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was Blind Isaac's house then?
A. Well, it was about, I think about ten or fif-
teen feet from her house, this was left out for a
street.
Q. Ten or fifteen feet from her loghouse that
was on what is called the Ripinski homestead there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how far was it from the fence on Mrs,
Dalton's acre where you run around it?
A. How many feet it was?
Q. Yes, how many feet from there ?
A. I think about a hundred and seventy-five feet.
Q. To the north or to the south?
A. To the Mission, from Blind Isaac 's.
Q. A hundred and seventy-five feet from —
A. Dalton acre.
Q. — up to Blind Isaac's? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Blind Isaac's would be to the north of the
Dalton acre about 175 feet? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I vmderstood you to say it was at Blind
Isaac's you began to build that fence?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchmmi et al. 485
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. And you run the fence away from the beach,
did you not?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you tell how far back from the beach
3^ou run the fence?
A. Well, I guess about twenty feet from high-
water mark.
Q. I mean how far back from the beach did the
fence extend — how far back did you go from the
beach, from the water?
A. Well, it would be about twenty feet.
Q. That's where you started? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far did you go into the woods with the
fence?
A. I couldn't tell you how far — away up, prettj^
near to where the sawmill is.
Q. You don't know how far that is?
A. I don't know exactly the length.
Q. I wish now you would look at this Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 1 and mark about where was the north-
east corner of the fence you built — down here in this
place called the Ripinski Homestead is, here is
where those two houses were where Sol. lives — just
in front of it there is the w^ater, and I understand
you to say, you built the fence to the westward
from there? A. Yes, sir, this way.
Q. Now, can you tell about where you put,
where you stopped building that fence — where the
fence ended?
486 Solomon Eipinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. I think tliere they call now Sixth Avenue,
somewheres near there.
Q. About how far from the Mission, — about how
far from the line that separates — about how far from
the line that is between what is marked there as
Main Street and what is marked as the Mission,
about how far was your fence from that?
A. Just a small piece, I think.
Q. Well, give us an estimate of about how far?
A. I couldn't say, probably fifteen or twenty feet,
I guess.
Q. I don't think you understand me, Mr. Rii3in —
A. You mean from the Mission to the fence we
had?
Q. From the old trail up to your fence, about
how far was it?
A. Oh, from the trail up to the fence?
Q. Yes?
A. I think about the same as on this side, about
three hundred and twenty feet.
Q. Well, about how much did joii allow in the
front — that is, on the beach side of this tract that
you fenced, about how much did you allow there
for the Dalton acre?
A. Well, I think it was a hundred or some odd
feet.
Q. And then there was the trail, wasn't there?
A. That was with the trail, about 100 feet.
Q. So you think you allowed about a hundred
and ten feet for the Dalton acre ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 487
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. No, about a liundred and two — little over a
hundred feet, I think.
Q. How much over you don't know — something
near that, as frontage for the Dalton acre'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I understand you to say that at the time
you built that fence, there wasn't anything on the
property in the way of buildings or tents or persons
occupying it, except on the front there where Mrs.
Dickinson had those two houses; is that right?
A. That's all there was, the two houses.
Q. When did you say that was, about what time?
A. I came over in November about the 20th, and
the property w^as sold about, I think, the commence-
ment of December, I believe the second.
Q. Something near the second of December?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The exact date you wouldn't be sure about,
but it was —
A. Well, I think now I know it; I think it was
something like the second or third.
Q. Of December. Now, do you know Tim
Creeden's partner, a man by the name of De Haven?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever see him starting in, or in posses-
sion of a building, a house on that property, right
back of what is called here, marked on this plat as
"Ripinski Homestead"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you say anything to him?
A. I went over to Mr. Brie and I asked him; I
didn't know who the party was building there, and
488 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
I asked him what business they had to build there
and he said it was —
Q. Well, never mind what he said.
A. I know I went with Mr. Brie, a party that
was there and this 23arty was tearing down and com-
mencing to build, and he said he was putting it up
for Carl Wilson and I told him he was on Ripinski's
ground; and not alone this, they have torn a piece
of the fence out, somebody did, and moved that
fence away.
Q. Do you know this gentleman over here, Mr.
G. C. De Haven'?
A. I don't remember who it was.
Q. Well, whoever it was that was building the
house — ■
A. I just came over from Dyea and happened to
be there, and when the boat came in I seen some-
body working there right from the boat where I
was, and when I came over there I told Brie; my
brother wasn't there, and I went up there right
quick — I don't remember whether it was Wilson —
Q. Your brother wasn't there at the time?
A. No, he was in Juneau.
Q. He was away then at the time the building
of this house was going on?
A. Yes, sir; and I asked him who he was, and
he said he was building a house for Carl Wilson, or
it was Carl Wilson himself, I don't know.
Q. Well, look at him now and see if yow don't
i^eognize him.
A. I don't know whether that's the man or not.
G. W. Hindi mrni et al. 489
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Well, what did he saj' now when you told
him he was on Ripinski's ground*?
A. All he said, he was putting it up for Carl Wil-
son.
Q. Did you tell him that was 3'our brother's land?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir; I told him my brother wasn't there.
Q. Now, you say your brother, the defendant
Sol. Ripinski, was away from Haines at that time?
A. Yes, sir, and Mr. Brie had charge of looking
after things and that's the reason I w^nt up there
with Brie.
Q. Do you know whether — or when your brother
came back?
A. I think I left the same day — I didn't stay
there,
Q. You left the same day?
A. Yes, sir; Mr. Brie told me he was going to
Chilkat—
Q. Never mind what Mr. Brie told you. Can you
remember now when your brother came back from
Juneau? A. I wasn't there.
Q. You went away then, before your brother
came back?
A. I went back to Dyea before he came back.
Q. Who sent you over there, Mr. Ripin, to fence
this piece of property — at whose request did you
go and build some of that fence?
A. My brother's.
Q. The defendant in this case, Solomon Rip-
inski? A. Yes, sir.
490 Solomon Ri pin shy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Do 3^011 know who broke that fence down on
the trail side as you have testified, and when they
broke it down? A. No, sir.
Q. You weren't there then? A. No, sir.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — You say your name is Ripin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you're a brother of Sol. Ripinski?
A. I am, sir.
Q. What did you change your name for?
A. I wanted to be Americanized.
Q. That's the only object you had in changing
your name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you change your name?
A. In 1895.
Q. In 1895 — after you came to this country?
A. Oh, 1875, I think it was; yes, here is one of
my cards — I think it was in 1875.
Q. It was 1875, was it — in Cincinnati, Ohio?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't it true that you failed in business down
there and thought it would be a good plan to change
your name? A. No, sir.
Q. You're not the kind of a man that does that
kind of business, are you, Pipin?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. I don't need to answer you that kind of a
question.
Q. Didn't you ever fail in business?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Not in business.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 491
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Didn't you fail in business, sir?
A. I don't need to tell you that.
Q. You don't? A. No, sir.
Q. All right, sir — that's the reason you changed
your name, wasn't it? A. No, sir.
Q. You failed in business and desired to go into
business again under the same name of Pipin?
A. No, sir.
Q. You're a fence-builder by trade, are you, Mr.
Pipin? A. I can't —
Q. That's been your occupation — building
fences? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you ever build any fences?
A. I helped to build this one.
Q. Down here in Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where else did you build any fence in Haines?
A. Nowhere else.
Q. Did you ever work on a farm?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have sold goods most of your life — sec-
ond-hand goods? A. No, sir.
Q. You're not a second-hand man, then?
A. Never.
Q. Where did you ever build a fence before you
built the one you described down at Haines?
A. That's the only one.
Q. That's the only one you ever built?
A. I didn't say I built it — I said I helped build-
ing it.
Q. Who superintended the building of that
fence? A. I did.
492 Solomon Bipinslxij vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. Who else helped you build that fence?
A. A fellow by the name of — white man from
Chilkat helped, and there was a half a dozen In-
dians— that man's name was Adolph, he worked
over there at the cannery.
Q. Worked at the cannery? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is he now? A. Inside.
Q. Where?
A. I think he's in Fairbanks or Nome some-
where.
Q. How do you know he 's at Fairbanks or Nome
somewhere ?
A. I know he went inside; he said he's got some
claims.
Q. When did he say that?
A. At the time I met him.
Q. Told you he had some claims at Fairbanks
about six or seven years ago; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you know as a matter of fact that such
a place as Fairbanks wasn't in existence then?
A. He said inside, or Nome or some place there.
Q. He isn't in there now, is he?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How do you know he's there?
A. Because he told me he went inside and I
haven't seen him come out.
Q. He told you six or seven years ago that he
was going into Fairbanks ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you know that six or seven years ago
Fairbanks wasn't known to exist and didn't exist?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 493
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. I said inside — Nome, or any of those places.
Q. Now, Mr. — what is your name'?
A. Ripin.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, don't you know as a matter
of fact there you don 't know where this man is, and
in fact there never was such a man as the one you
describe? A. I don't know it.
Q. Well, you say he came there and helped you
build a fence?
A. I didn't say he came, he was there too.
Q. Who else worked on that fence beside you and
he % A. Good many natives.
Q. Oh — there were a good many natives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where are they, now?
A. I guess they're there yet in Haines.
Q. You haven't any of those natives here to tes-
tify to the building of that fence, have you?
A. I couldn't remember them if I seen them.
Q. You remember Adolph, whom you say is in-
side? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He went some six or seven j^ears ago into
Fairbanks ?
A. No, he left about a year afterwards, I have
seen him in Haines.
Q. And he told you he had claims in there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many years ago?
A. Five years ago.
Q. Didn't 3'ou say six or seven j^ears ago?
A. Yes, sir.
494 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Where did he have claims six or seven years
ago? A. It was inside.
Q. When did he locate them?
A. I don't know; he was inside.
Q. And you say there were several natives who
helped you to build that fence? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you can't remember a single one of them?
A. No, sir.
Q. What part of that fence-building did you do?
A. I helped on it at Isaac's place up there.
Q. I'm not talking about Isaac's place — just
wait and understand my question and then an-
swer it — what part of the work of building that
fence did you, Pipin, do — you?
A. I didn't do anything; I helped, I said.
Q. What did you do to help? A. Well—
Q. What did you do?
A. Oh, rolled the wire, or helped like anybody
else.
Q. Is that the way you build fences — roll the
wire?
A. I wasn't by myself; there was five or six
natives.
Q. What did you have to roll the wire for in
building a fence — do you really know how to build
a fence?
A. I think anybody can build a fence.
Q. How did you build it — what did you do to
build it?
A. I helped them bring the wire up, and bring
G. W. Hinchman et ah 495
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
the nails there, and bring anything they needed
for it.
Q. What did they need for it?
A. I guess nails, and they need other things.
Q. That's the way they put on the wire, wasn't
it, posts and nails?
A. No, not nails, kind of — I don't know what
you call them, kind of hooks.
Q. Oh, they used hooks to build that fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This is all new matter to you, isn't it, Mr.
Ripin? A. Not a new matter to me; no.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, isn't it a fact that you didn't
do anything towards building that fence?
A. I did.
Q. When did you build it?
A. In December.
Q. What year? A. Year 1897.
Q. When did you begin?
A. I think it must have been the 10th or 12th.
Q. Of December, 1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did it take you to build it?
A. Well, I was only over there a few days; I
didn't build the whole fence, I said.
Q. How long did it take you to build that fence?
A. I didn't build it — I helped.
Q. How long did it take you to build it?
A. Two days I helped over there.
Q. How long did it take to build that fence?
A. Well, I guess it took them — the parties, you
mean? I guess it took them two weeks.
496 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. And the}^ began about what time?
A. The December tenth.
Q. And Mr. Adolph and yourself and a lot of
natives worked in the building of the fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Began about the 8th — A. The tenth —
Q. — of December; and you continued to work —
A. Two days.
Q. And the natives and Adolph continued to
work for two weeks thereafter on the fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Harry Fa}^? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you know that he was at Haines at that
time? A. No, sir.
Q. You don't know he landed there, then, on
the 14th day of December of that year?
A. Well, he might; yes.
Q. Well, do you know whether he did or not?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. You don't know anything about it then?
A. No, sir.
Q. Don't you think if Mr. Fay was there on the
tenth day of December he could have seen that
fence? A. I haven't seen him.
Q. Do you think if Mr. Fay was in Haines at that
time — A. If he was, yes.
Q. — on the 14th day of December, 1897, and
was there for some time after, that he could have
seen that fence?
A. He could if he wanted — maybe he didn't want
to.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 497
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Do you think all of these other men who have
testified could have seen that fence if it had been
there? A. If they were there; yes.
Q. You didn't try to hide that fence, did you'?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how did you get through the timber
there, Mr. Pipin — Mr. Ripin, excuse me — how did
you get through the timber in building that fence f
A. We had hard trouble —
Q. I don't doubt it a bit — how did you get
through it?
A. Had to get in the snow, in and out through it.
Q. How deep was the snow at the time?
A. It wasn't very deep at the time, but after it
was deeper some.
Q. How do you know, were you up there where
the fence was later? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you go to examine that fence again?
A. I was there, I think, the middle of Janu-
ary.
Q. How deep in the ground did you set the posts
for that fence?
A. I didn't set any posts; the natives done that.
Q. Oh, they set the posts? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How deejD did they set them?
A. I expect two or three feet, probably three.
Q. How did you sink those holes three feet deep,
with a spade?
A. Yes, sir; we had a spade and good many
things working.
498 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. Yes; there's iisualh' a good many things re-
quired in digging post-holes, isn't there? Don't you
know, sir, that the ground was frozen so hard at
that time you couldn't dig post-holes with a spade?
A. With a spade, or — what you call it — I don't
know.
Q. You don't remember much of am^thing at all
about the building of that fence, do you?
A. I know, but I can't call it by name.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Was it a mattock?
By Mr. LYONS.— I wish the record to show that
counsel is instructing the witness what to say.
A. I don't remember the name of the tool — one
with the point this way and in the middle this way
— different thing —
Q. I guess your counsel knows more about build-
ing a fence than you do, don't he?
A. I guess he is better.
Q. Was it cold out there when you were build-
ing that fence? A. I guess it was.
Q. Was it below zero, Mr. Pipin?
A. No, sir, I don't think it was.
Q. How did you find the lines to run the fence
on? A. We run it right straight up there.
Q. I don't have any doubt about that either —
straight up; but how did you find the lines?
A. Maybe it ain't in the line yet.
Q. Well, how did you know where the ground
was?
A. He had somebody run it up there. We had a
G. W. Hinchman et al. 499
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
measure and measured it and that's the way we ran
the line up, so as to make it straight.
Q. That's the way you came to find Ripinski's
ground, is it, with a measure?
A. No, we ran it right straight up.
Q. Well, how did you find his ground in the first
place?
A. We measured from the front, and then w^e
knew how to run it straight up.
Q. What did 3^ou measure it that way for?
A. Wanted to know how man}^ feet it was.
Q. How do you know that was his ground?
A. He bought it.
Q. How do you know he bought it?
A. I was there.
Q. When? A. December second.
Q. Sure about that, are you?
A. Yes, sir — second or third.
Q. What were you doing over there the second
or third? A. I came over to stay there.
Q. I thought you lived at Dyea?
A. I went over there in January.
Q. You said you helped to build this fence, went
over there to help on the 8th or 10th, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And worked there two days?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you go then?
A. Back to Chilkat over.
Q. Back to Chilkat? A. Yes, sir. '
500 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. How did you know where Eipinski's land was
when you went to work at the fence?
A. On this side w-as Blind Isaac's, on the side —
well, it was on the north side. Blind Isaac's and on
the other side of course was the Mission.
Q. How do you know?
A, Wasn't I over there?
Q. Well, you might have been over there — how
did you know that was Ripinski's ground?
A. Didn't he buy it?
Q. How do you know he bought — I'm asking
you? A. I was over there.
Q. What was said or done when he bought that
land?
A. In the first place, he wanted a witness, Mr.
Baldwin, and I went to the store and got Baldwin
to sign it. My brother told me what he was going
to buy, we talked it over before we bought it. I was
talking with my brother the matter over again —
Q. Over again?
A. — the matter over about that property over
there at Haines.
Q. Just a moment, now — you say you talked it
over again at Haines, and had talked it over before ?
A. I mean at the time we talked about buying.
Q. What do you mean by saying you talked the
matter over again?
A. You said "again" — I said talked the matter
over about buying the ground.
Q. How did you come to talk it over?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 501
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Well, you see the boats couldn't stop over to
Chilkat, they stop over at the Mission, and each time
the boat stopped and brought us goods we had to
carry them to Cliilkat and when the weather was bad
of course it was a hard thing to get over — not such
a good roads as they have now, and I asked my
brother about the two houses and he says it belongs
to Mrs. Dickinson, she sold an acre and she claims fif-
teen acres more and storehouse and warehouse and I
told him if he could buy that he could run the goods
over there.
Q. You didn't think it would take fifteen acres
to land goods on did you?
A. Not to land goods, but the whole thing — I
thought it would be worth money.
Q. You knew, as a matter of fact, that she didn't
own fifteen acres, didn't you?
A. I did — that's what she told me.
Q. You knew very well, Mr. Ripin, that she didn't
exert any acts of ownership over any ground there
at Haines except that small tract marked on this
exhibit here "Ripinski Homestead" — you know
that?
A. My brother told me she has sixteen acres and
sold one acre, and has fifteen acres left.
Q. I'm not asking you, sir, what your brother
told you — don't you know as a matter of fact that
Mrs. Dickinson only improved and actually occupied
a small portion of ground there close to the beach,
which is now occupied by your brother the defendant
in this case ?
502 Solomon Bipinslcij vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Well, she — well, she didn't improve the whole
piece, no.
Q. That's the only part she ever did improve?
A. Yes, sir — not the fifteen acres, no.
Q. And there was no fence around it, was there ?
A. There was a piece of fence running between
Mrs. Dalton's and the one Ripinski bought.
Q. Up how far did that run ?
A. I think that fence run up probably as far as —
Q. As far as Morrison's store?
A. No, not quite that far.
Q. That was the only fence on that tract ?
A. At the time he bought it, yes, sir.
Q. And all of the rest of that ground was covered
with brush and timber ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And hadn't been in any way improved or
cleared ?
A. No, that's right; only part of it cleared.
Q. ' I said — just answer my question ; no part of
the premises in controversy except the small portion
Mrs. Dickinson occupied near the beach, had ever
been improved, or cleared or fenced at the time Sol.
bought that land ?
A. That's right; yes, sir.
Q. Now, when did you last see that fence ?
A. In January— you mean, that's the Mission
fence ?
Q. You know I haven't been talking about the
Mission fence ?
A. I mean the fence on the Mission side.
Q. I'm talking about the fence you helped to
G. W. Hinchman et al. 503
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
build — that magnificent fence you and the Indians
built?
A. It has been there, I think, yes, sir — after that.
Q. When did you see it last ?
A. Well, 3^ou see I came back, I think, in about
December, 1898, came back to live at Haines, and I
run up there a big piece and the fence was there ,yet.
Q. On which side of the premises —
A. On the side I'm living now; that's on Blind
Isaac's side.
Q. On the north side ?
A. On the north side.
Q. How much of it was there then ?
A. Well the fence is there yet I guess, part of it.
Q. You guess %
A. No; there's part of it up to Carl Wilson's —
that's Mr. De Haven.
Q. Where is that with reference to the ground
now occupied by Ripinski?
A. Well, up to De Haven's place.
Q. Is that part of the fence you built ?
A. Same part, yes, sir.
Q. Sure of that, are you % A. Yes, sir.
Q. The fence to the south side you say you helped
build — where is that now?
A. Well, part of it I guess is there yet.
Q. You guess again about it ?
A. It is there yet, of course ; every year you've got
to fix it up again — you can't have a fence stay up all
the time; you've got to put posts in, the wire comes
sometimes loose and put it back again, you got to
504 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
put some kind of work on it, it don 't stay there since
ten years.
Q. You mean to say you ever improved that fence
since you built it?
A. Yes, sir, I'm living on it now.
Q. You're on the fence now?
A. No, sir, not on it — near it.
Q. I'm asking you if you ever improved the fence
you say you built on the south side line of this prop-
erty ? A. Whether I improved it lately ?
Q. Whether you ever improved it ?
A. Yes, sir, all the time; yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. The last one a fcAV months ago.
Q. On the south side of this tract — a few months
ago? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anyone see you doing it?
A. I don't know — I don't know if they seen me.
Q. Didn't you state to Mr. Jennings, your coun-
sel, on direct examination that there was absolutely
no fence on the south side of the tract, and there
hadn't been an)" fence there for seven or eight or
nine years?
A. No, sir, you 're mistaken ; there is a fence there
all the time.
Q. Your fence is there all the time, the one you
built? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It runs along Main Street, does it ?
A. No, sir, not Main Street; I'm speaking about
the south side where my house is now.
Q. Where is your house and store ?
G. W. Hincliman et al. 505
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Right near Dalton Street what you call it —
right here I guess it is.
Q. You're familiar with this map and plat?
A. I am not — that's the first time I ever seen it
yet.
Q. Well, look at it? A. I'm looking at it.
Q. Well, have you familiarized yourself with that
map now ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, where is the fence you're talking about
on there ?
A. It runs right straight up this way.
Q. I'm speaking to you, sir, about the south side
of those premises?
A. Yes, I'm living on the south side.
Q. That's the north side? A. Let's see —
Q. You're not very well acquainted with Haines
at all, are you?
A. The south side is the Main Street, that's got
no fence.
Q. Well, when did it last have a fence?
A. Oh, I guess ten years ago, or nine years.
Q. Who built that fence? A. I guess —
Q. Now, I've had enough of .your guessing; state
a fact or so.
A. A native did, and Mr. — I forget his name,
Adolph.
Q. Did you see them building it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn't you state, sir, you were there only two
days, and didn't see them building that fence?
506 Solomon TtipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
A. No, sir, I came over every other day from
Chilkat to Haines, it's only a mile or mile and a
quarter and I go over there in about twenty minutes,
and I came over there every other day they were
working over there, and I went to see what they were
doing.
Q. And they were building this fence on the south
side
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Q
of Main Street enclosing the alleged —
On the south side of Main Street ?
Yes, sir, on the south side '^
Where my house is there now ?
Inclosing the alleged claim of Ripinski?
Yes, sir.
Was Harry Fay there then?
He wasn't there at that time.
Was Mr. Martin there ? A. No, sir.
Was Mr. Creeden there then ?
No, sir.
How^ do you know they weren 't there 1
I was there.
Don't you know as a matter of fact that Cree-
den came there and was there a long time before you
were? A. He wasn't on the ground there.
Q. He wasn 't on the ground at any time they were
building this fence? A. No, sir.
Q. How do you know he wasn't?
A. I was there.
Q. I thought you said you went home every night
and came over every day or every other day ?
A. He wasn't there, though.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 507
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. You're pretty anxious to testify in this case,
aren't you? A. Whatever you ask me.
Q. You're a brother of the defendant?
A. I am.
Q. Have you any interest in this tract of land
with him? A. No, sir.
Q. He owns the whole business, does he ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the last time you ever saw that fence
on the south side of this tract when you saw the
Indians and Adolph building it ?
A. Last time ? No, I seen them when they were
done with it, paid them all for it.
Q. Did you see it for two or three months after-
guards f
A. I wasn 't over there ; I only came occasionally ;
and the side fence is there a long time, but the front
fence is broken down pretty soon.
Q. It was there in the spring of 1898, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in the summer of 1898?
A. Part of it ; yes, sir.
Q. It began to vanish some time in the summer
of 1898? A. Yes, sir.
Q, Do you think it all blew away?
A. No, sir, people broke it down.
Q. There's no sign of it there now?
A. No, not now.
Q. And there hasn 't been any evidence of it there
for how many years do you say ?
A. I gu€ss for nine or eight years anyhow.
508 Solomon Ripinshy vs,
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. And you're sure it was there in the summer of
1898? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there were several of these people I have
named there in 1898, wasn't there? A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Fay was there in '98, wasn't he?
A. He may have been in '98, yes.
Q. How tall in 1898 was this fence on the south
side of the tract ?
A. I wasn't over there; I left Haines or Chilkat
about January first and came back again in about
8 or 9 days and stayed there a few days and went back
to Dyea ; we were building a store at Dyea and I had
to be there.
Q. Then when did you go back to Haines again?
A. I came often and on every six weeks or two
months.
Q. And .you saw that fence along the south side of
that tract when you came back, didn't you — along
Main Street?
' A. Well, yes, I guess I seen it — part of it.
Q. It stood there a year afterwards?
A. Oh, no.
Q. Then it vanished within the year?
A. Didn't vanish; people broke it down, I guess.
Q. Did you see anybody breaking it down?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, where did you get that wire you built
that fence with ?
A. My brother brought it down from the Mission,
from R — from the Presbyterian Missionary, Mr.
Warne was his name.
G, W. Hincliman et al. 509
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. You're sure he purchased it from the Mission-
ary?
A. He didn't bought it — I heard him say he had
to give fifty dollars to either send wire ; I don 't know
whether he bought it — anyhow, he left fifty dollars
with him to guarantee he pays for it.
Q. How far was that fence built around the back
side of the tract when ,you left — when you had worked
there two days ? It was two days you worked there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much of that line of fence was built when
you left? A. A good manj^ —
Q. Well, how much ?
A. I couldn't say; a hundred feet, I guess.
Q. You don't know anything about a fence, do
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you right sure .you ever saw a wire fence
in your life? A. Yes, I got one right now.
Q. You built that yourself, I suppose ?
A. Well, I have fixed it up all by myself.
Q. Now, how far was this wonderful fence built
on the back side of the tract during the two days you
worked there ?
A. Oh, I don't know^; I guess probably —
Q. Up to the sawmill ?
A. Oh, no, sir, you can't put it that quick there —
probably thirty or forty feet.
Q. It took you two days to build thirty or forty
feet ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many posts did you put in?
A. I think it was about ten feet apart.
510 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. How many Indians did you say you had work-
ing with you ?
A. Four or five or six, I don't know how many —
Q. Four or five or six Indians and Adolph and
you succeeded in building thirty or forty feet in two
days I A.I think about that.
Q. Took you two days to build forty feet of fence ?
A. It wasn't exactly forty feet, the first day or
two is always some extra work to get your things out,
the wire we used there, and we had to locate it and
everything else and of course it takes longer the first
two days, and after that —
Q. It didn't take long to carry the wire for forty
feet of fence, did it ? A. Oh, not very long.
Q. Do you know how far forty feet is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know when you only put the posts in ten
feet ajDart that only means four posts : Do you want
to tell any Court, Mr. Ripin, that you superintended
the construction of that fence, with six natives and a
white man, and it took you two days to build forty
feet of fence with the posts ten feet apart ?
A. Well, I said I didn't know exactly, but about
that much I guess.
Q. Mr. Ripin, have you got any order of Court
showing the date your name was changed ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is it?
A. That's the date I gave it to you, that card.
Q. That's not an order?
G. W. Hincliman et al. 511
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. You know the Masonic Lodge won't change
your name without any authority — here is some-
thing; you don't think you could change it without
an order, do you ?
Q. I don't know what you can do —
A. This is dated March 9th, 1907—
Q. Yes, that card, that's dated March, 1907; isn't
it true you changed your name after your brother
failed in business at Haines ? A. No, sir.
Q. And you began business under the name of
Ripin and company?
A. No, sir; that's fifteen 3^ears ago, isn't it —
1895—
Q. Why, now, did you change 3^our name ?
A. I wanted to be Americanized.
Q. That's the only reason — you wanted to be
Americanized? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You thought the other name sounded too Pol-
ish, did you ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you wanted to get as far away as you
could from your fatherland, Poland ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so you repudiated your name and took
the name Ripin? A. I had it done by law.
Q. But you won't state to me whether you failed
in business or not, will you? A. No, sir.
Objected to as immaterial and irreleyant, and the
witness may answer or not as he chooses.
Q. Did you fail in business in Alaska ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
512 Solomon Bi pin shy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Since you have become Americanized now,
Ripin, you feel you're able to go out and fence up
the public domain, don't you?
A. I haven't done it yet.
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and argu-
mentative, and impertinent.
Q. Do you think changing your name has helped
you to learn how to build fences "?
A. No, I guess not.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, let me ask you this question:
How much of that fence on the back side of this tract
is still standing ?
A. Yes, I must think how many feet it was — I
think about two hundred feet.
Q. Where was that fence standing? I want to
get the definite point.
A. Well, I guess it runs about six feet in the
street here, then up a hundred and ten feet, runs right
this way — well, I don't think it's that long; this is
already Third Street, I guess up to here — excuse me,
I thought —
Q. The fence is only standing then from a point —
where now? A. Where my store is, right here.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Hold on, now; you just get
an understanding of that map before you testify.
A. Well, this is Ripinski Homestead?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Well, here is the street?
Q. No, sir, that's the beach.
A. Well, the house is about here, I guess, isn't it?
Q. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 513
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
A. Well, this is my house.
By Mr. LYONS. — The witness states his house
is north of the easterly extremity of the tract
marked "Ripinski Homestead."
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. Now, from that point, where does that fence
commence and where does it end?
A. Well, you know from the store —
Q. Well, now, I wish you would mark on that
map first where that fence conmiences?
A. Well — this is the street, isn't \i%
By Mr. JENNINGS.— No, that's the beach.
Q. And this is the corner, ain't it, where my store
is, and the fence runs from the storehouse, I think,
about 8 feet out this way, runs up this way 105 feet.
By Mr. LYONS. — Now, mark on the easterly cor-
ner of that fence with a cross.
A. Let's see; about here, isn't it? Here is the
store —
Q. Mark it with a cross — now it runs —
A. A hundred and five feet up this way.
Q. In an easterly direction?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— That's in a westerly di-
rection.
A. Yes, sir, 105 feet to point there — that mark.
Q. Mark the corner now, the w^esterly corner,
with an "0."
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Do you know the scale of
this map, Mr. Ripin?
A. No, sir, I don't know that scale; give me a
piece of paper and I will describe it.
514 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eii^in.)
Defendant objects to the request of counsel be-
cause it is immaterial and irrelevant, and extremely
unfair to the witness to ask him to mark a definite
jjoint there without giving him any information
about the map.
By Mr. LYONS.— Now, Mr. Ripin, you know
where Morrison's Hotel is"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, sir, I'm not trying to take any advan-
tage of you — take the map yourself and figure it
out? A. Yes, give me now^ that —
Q. Now, I will call your attention —
A. Yes, sir, all right, sir.
Q. — to the southeast corner of Block No. 1, and
I will state to you that that is the Morrison Hotel.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I also call your attention —
A. All right, sir —
Q. — to parcel No. 17 in Block 1, marked De
Haven and Creeden?
A. Yes, well my lot runs up there.
Q. Well, wait till I get through with my ques-
tion. Now, where does that fence run with refer-
ence to the northeast corner of the Creeden and De
Haven lot ?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— What fence run?
By Mr. LYONS.— The fence that is still standing
— if you let him alone he knows what I mean — the
one he has been describing, where is it with refer-
ence to that lot?
A. Well, right straight with this line, up to here.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 515
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. Now, then, make on that map, mark the west-
erly extremity of that portion of the fence which
is still standing? A. Well, right here.
Q. Well, right here.
Q. Mark the point, at the end of it.
A. I will mark it — is that all right"?
Q. Right here, is it? Mark it with an "0"—
this is his lot? (Witness marks.) It runs, then,
from the cross you have marked off, in a westerly
direction to the northeast corner of the Creeden lot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that fence is standing there to-day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Two wires on it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all of the posts are in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And none of the wires are down?
A. Well, all of them been down, but we fixed
them.
Q. Now, 3'ou never fixed or repaired the fence
that extends westerly, in a westerly direction from
the corner of Creeden 's lot to which you have re-
ferred? A. No, not that.
Q. You never repaired that at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not from the very day it was built?
A. I couldn't repair it; they all claimed it.
Q. You never repaired that from the day it was
built to this very day, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether that fence is up there
now? A. I don't know.
516 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Now, when was the last tune you saw any
portion of that fence — I'm not talking now about
the fence still standing, but from there on westerly?
A. About a year after, a big piece of it.
Q. That was the last you ever saw of it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far up now, had you built this fence with
the natives and Adolph before you left that time?
A. What do you mean before I left?
Q. You said you worked two days in building
that fence; about how far had you completed that
fence westerly from the point you started, before
vou left?
t/
A. We run it first in the front, and then run
it up.
Q. You run it northerly first? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From where? . A. The warehouse.
Q. Where is that?
A. Right in front of here,
Q. Well, how far did you build it westerly?
A. Well, I think it's about sixty or seventy feet
up to —
Q. And you built it in a northerly direction how
far?
A. Well, I said I didn't know exactly; I think it
must have been about forty feet up this way.
Q. How many feet westerly did you build it be-
fore you left?
A. Oh — which is west, this way?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I think I said about forty feet.
G, W. HincJiman et al. 517
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. How many feet northerly did 3^011 build it?
A. Well, that was sixty-five or seventy feet.
Q. Now, where did you get that barbed wire?
A. My brother got it from Mr. Warne.
Q. Where did you find it the day you began to
use it?
A. He told me he got it over there, and got the
natives to bring it to the place wherever I wanted
it.
Q. You got the natives to bring it?
A. I didn't tell them; I guess he did.
Q. Your brother was away at the time, wasn't
he?
A. No, sir, he was there when I commenced to
build that fence, wasn't away.
Q. He took part then in the building of that
fence ?
A. No, sir, he came over several times to see
what we were doing it.
Q. Who was the superintendent of that job?
A. I think a fellow by the name of Adolph.
Q. Oh, you say now he was bossing the job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do? A. I helped it.
Q. What did you do?
A. Bringing the nails up, and getting the wire
up.
Q. What did you want nails for?
A. Didn't have nails there on the trees — had to
have hooks to build fence with.
518 Solovdon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Was it yevy much of a job to carry those
hooks up there?
A. I guess it was; it is a big load.
Q. You had to have a big load of hooks to build
forty feet of fence with, didn't you?
A. The hooks wasn't just for those forty feet.
Q. How many trips did you have to make to
carry the hooks?
A. I don't know — carried them from one place
to another.
Q. Did you carry anything else?
A. We needed axes and shovels and picks and so.
Q. What did you need axes for?
A. Had to chop trees down to get posts, don't
we?
Q. Did you chop any trees down?
A. I didn't; the natives done that.
Q. Didn't you have the posts ready when you
began to build? A. No, just fixing it.
Q. So they proceeded to get the posts out that
day, didn't they? A. Some of them; yes, sir.
Q. Who were those natives?
A. Well, Chilkat Indians.
Q. Name a single one of them?
A. I can't name any of them, no, sir — you see I
just got there.
Q. You paid them all off, you said?
A. Yes, sir, paid them in the store.
Q. Who kept their time?
A. Well, Adoljjh was the man — white man.
Q. Who kept the books of the store?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 519
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
A. Well, I guess my brother did.
Q. I suppose their names were put on the books'?
A. No, he didn't keep those names.
Q. How do you know their names aren't on the
books?
A. I was helped selling, I ought to know.
Q. Now, who kept their time did you say?
A. Adolph came back each night and said how
much we owed them; they all lived at Chilkat, all
had to go to their homes and put up buildings.
Q. How often did you pay the natives off?
A. Paid them every night; didn't pay money all
to them; some took goods.
Q. When did you pay Adolph?
A. I didn't pay Adolph; my brother did.
Q. He was there during all the building of that
fence, was he?
A. Didn't pay him in Haines; paid him over to
Chilkat.
Q. Was he at Chilkat all the time?
A. Not all the time.
Q. Were you at Chilkat all the time?
A. Not all the time.
Q. You stated a while ago that you went over
from Chilkat about every other day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you go over to Haines for?
A. Going to see what they were doing.
Q. Adolph was bossing that job, wasn't he?
A. Well, I was fixing up the store and ware-
house.
520 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. You were? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Every day?
A. Sometimes every day, sometimes every other.
Q. I thought you went out to help the natives
build that fence.
A. I looked after them too; yes, sir.
Q. When did they complete that fence?
A. I think the later part of December, 1897.
Q. Did you notify any of those men down there
not to build on this tract at the time?
A. The only one was Mr. De Haven.
Q. Didn't 3^ou state here this evening on direct
examination that you didn't know Mr. De Haven
at all?
A. I meant whether he builded the house,
whether it was Mr. De Haven or his partner.
Q. You said he tore down the fence — what fence
did he tear down, Mr. Bipin?
A. The fence alongside of it.
Q. That ran along the northerly line — or the
westerly line — A. Yes.
Q. Just wait till I get the question completed —
they tore down the fence that ran along the west-
erly end line of the Ripinski property?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who built that fence?
A. I don't know; I wasn't there when it was
built.
Q. What was that fence built for?
A. Well, I don't know what it was built for;
I guess to keep the people out of it.
G. W. HincJiman et al. 521
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. To keep the people off you think. Now, why
do you think he fenced the people off the tract
marked Ripinski Homestead and not off the other
part of the tract to the west"?
A. I guess he wanted them there off too.
Q. Well, what did he build a fence for, dividing
his premises in that manner?
A. It was a 3'ear and a half or two years after
it was built around.
Q. The partition fence, then, was built two years
afterwards %
A. I don't know at that time; there was no fence
there before.
Q. Well, now, just wait until you understand my
question — A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then try and answer intelligently,
please — A. Yes, sir, of course.
Q. You say you're familiar with the Morrison
Hotel? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And 3^ou know this line that runs along on the
easterly side of the lot that Morrison owns and the
lot that De Haven owns? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that line that separates their ground
from the ground that Mr. Ripinski owns?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you know when Mr. Ripinski built
the fence along that line?
A. I didn't remember; I wasn't there at all.
Q. Was it built after or before the other fence?
A. It was built after.
Q. Long after the other fence?
522 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, why did Mr. Ripinski want to build
that fence along there if he claimed the whole prem-
ises on both sides of that fence — I want to know
that?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and ask-
ing the witness for the reasons operating in the mind
of another person.
A. You see, they're building all along here, and
he has to protect himself, I expect.
Q. You talked to him about that, did you?
A. No, sir, I wasn't there when that fence was
put.
Q. How long since have you lived there?
A. I'm living there yet, I guess, going on now
18 years.
Q. You lived there all of that time?
A. No, sir, I lived one year in Dj^ea.
Q. What year was that?
A. I left there January, 1898, — not Dyea, I mean
Chilkat; I went over there and stayed pretty near
a year and came back December.
Q. To where? A. To Haines.
Q. And you have lived there all the time since?
A. Yes, sir; I haven't been out exception to com-
ing up to Skagway once or twice or a half dozen
times.
Q. I understood you to say you built this fence
around this tract of land when?
A. In December, '97.
Q. And you built this fence here —
G. ]]'. Hiiichmau et al. 523
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. I didn't say I built this; I say I guess my
brother had it built on account of he didn't want
them parties to come in here.
Q. And he built that two years after the other
was built"?
A. I don't know, maybe only one year; I couldn't
tell you because I wasn't there.
Q. You said just a moment ago you thought
about two years'?
A. I don't know" when he built that; I didn't
build it; and I lived over in Dyea —
Q. You only lived in Dyea one year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then came back to Haines and have lived
there ever since, haven't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it there when you lived in Dyea?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he must have built it some time within
a year after the other fence was built?
A. Yes, I guess so.
Q. And you have lived there for eight years now?
A. Eight and going on nine years now.
Q. And you have seen people come in there and
build their houses and make their improvements?
A. Yes, sir, I have seen them too.
Q. And you know that those people actually oc-
cupy the premises that they claim in their com-
plaint ?
Objected to as not cross-examination and assum-
ing that the witness knows what's in the complaint.
A. I think so.
524 Solomon Ilipinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. You never notified any of those people that
Sol. Ripinski claimed that land, did you?
A. No, sir, with the exception of Carl Wilson.
Q. And the reason you notified him was because
he was tearing down that partition fence?
A. No, I seen him building when we came in
from Dyea and I went over to Brie and told him
about it and we w^ent up there and I happened to
see the fence down.
Q. Why didn't you go and notify all the other
people building on this disputed tract?
A. I don't live in — I didn't happen to see them
build.
Q. You have lived there a long time now, haven't
you?
A. My brother was tending to that business.
Q. He was away for quite a while, wasn't he?
A. At that time when I happened to come over.
Q. And there were other people building there?
A. He had somebody — Mr. Brie to attend to that.
Q. You thought it was incumbent on you to go
and caution this man that was building on Mr.
Creeden's lot not to build there any longer?
A. Well, my brother wasn't there and I thought
it would be necessary, and I came to Brie and we
ran up there.
Q, Why didn't you let Brie attend to that?
A. I wanted to see myself too.
Q. Why didn't you caution all the other people
building there at that time to discontinue building?
A. They probably didn't build the same dav.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 525
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. Well, they were building when your brother
was away?
A. I w^asn't OA^er there; I just happened to come
over to Haines that day and coming down here I
noticed from the street —
Q. How long did you stay in Haines that trip?
A. I think a day or two.
Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Eipin, that the reason you
didn't want any more building on the Creeden lot
was because they were tearing down the partition
fence? A. No, the fence w^as dow^n already.
Q. You said, sir, that they tore down that fence
and moved it? A. No, I said somebody tore
it down.
Q. That was the reason — you didn't want any-
body tearing down that fence?
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. Didn't w^ant them to tear down your fence?
Objected to, because there is no evidence that it was
his fence.
Q. Well, I will change that — to tear down your
brother's fence, then?
A. The fence was lying down already.
Q. You thought those people around there tore it
down, didn't you, Eipin?
Objected to as not binding on the defendant.
Q. — and that's the reason you didn't want them
to continue building there, because someone tore
down that fence ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and put-
ting words in the witness ' mouth.
526 Solomon RipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
A. No, I told you I wanted to notify tliem, that's
all.
Q. You didn't want tliem to continue because they
tore that fence down ?
A. I didn't say that — I didn't say they tore it
down ; I said somebody tore it down.
Q. That's the reason you didn't want anybody
building there, you didn 't want the fences down f
A. Didn't want anybody to build either, I guess.
Q. You're not sure of that then?
A. Yes, I'm sure.
Q. Why didn't you in building that fence, follow
this survey, the land that Ripinski claims now ?
A. He didn't have any survey down there.
Q. You know, now, that Mr. Ripinski claims this
wedge-shaped tract, don't you, being very narrow at
the westerly end and wide at the easterly end?
A. Yes, I have heard it.
Q. Do you know ? A. No, I heard about it.
Q. Did you know what tract Mr. Ripinski, your
brother, owned at the time you built that fence ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you did, why didn't you follow the lines as
indicated by this survey ?
A. This is the line here — that's the line.
Objected to, as a deliberate attempt to confuse the
witness, and counsel well knows a surve3^or when he
goes to survey the land that is claimed as a home-
stead has got to survey by lines running north and
south irrespective of the way the location notice
reads.
G. W. Hinchman et ah 527
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. That's it, yes, sir; that's it — just the reason
we run the lines straight up.
Q. Now, that's very nice, to have your counsel tell
you what to answer — didn't you state, sir, a while
ago that the reason you didn't follow the survey was
because you didn't know where the lines were?
A. Because we didn't have any survey; yes, sir.
Q. You didn't then know where the lines were
when you built that fence ?
A. We measured it up.
Q. You didn't know whether your brother's
ground was wider at one end than the other, did you %
A. No, sir, we measured it the same on one side
as the other side.
Q. You don't know as a matter of fact w^hether
the land he was claiming then is the same as he claims
now ? A. It wasn 't at that time ; no.
Q. He has been cutting it down a little, I guess?
A. No, sir, but according to the survey now for
a homestead I was told he had to run it kind of — I
don't know now which way it was.
Q. Who told ,you that, — Mr. Jennings'?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Jennings .iust made an objection a moment
ago in which he stated exactly what you want to say,
didn't he?
A. No, I heard a surveying party themselves
when they surveyed the homestead and measured it
right from my store.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, some surveyor told you that
the reason, or that it was necessary to make a home-
528 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
stead claim wider at one end than the other — did
anyone ever tell you that it was necessary in order to
get a patent for a homestead, it was necessary to
make your claim wider at one end than at the other ?
A. No, he claimed the Mission ground side
couldn't be changed otherwise that would run it this
way; I heard them say it would have to do anyhow
and the Mission side couldn't be changed on account
of it had been surveyed; and if it is surveyed one
side it has got to run with the survey that is on the
north side or south side and on the north side of the
tract it is kind of an easterly way — I heard him say
that.
Q. You say, sir — A. Yes, sir.
Q. — don't get smart, now, — that according to the
rules governing surveyors that it is necessary to
have — A. I don't know.
Q. — that surveyors have told you — just wait a
minute, now — to have a tract of ground wider at one
end than the other in order to get a patent — did any-
one ever tell you that f
Objected to as exceedingly unfair to the witness.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you thaf?
A. Yes, sir; I heard them say the survey on the
Mission side couldn't be changed, that you have to
run a straight line with the Mission side, otherwise
they could have run it straight out to this line ; they
had to run in kind an easterly way; I heard them
say that.
Q. Did the surveyor tell you it was necessary to
make this big jog in the ground down here?
G. W. Hinclunan d ah 529
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. I have no interest which way they make it.
Q. Did the surveyor tell you it was necessary to
make any such — A. I have no interest in that.
Q. — just wait a minute, sir — did he tell you it
was necessary in order to get a patent to this tract
of land that you should draw the line from corner
No. 2 to corner No. 3 as it has been drawn, and then
run easterly from 3 to 4 ?
A. Excuse me; I don't know I heard them say
that, —
Objected to as being a question that onl.y a sur-
veyor could answer, a U. S. Deputy surveyor himself
proceeding under the rules and regulations of the De-
partment, and it is unfair to this witness who is not a
surveyor at all to ask him such questions as that.
Q. Well, he can state what he heard a surveyor
say, whether he is a surveyor or not. Now% Mr.
Ripin — A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't know, as a matter of fact, when
you built that fence, where Mr. Ripinski's property
was? A. I do.
Q. You know all about that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You felt that you knew definitely where each
corner ought to be, didn 't you %
A. Oh, not exactly the corner; you know there
was an Indian by the name of Blind Isaac, who lived
here —
Q. Lived where ?
A. About here, right here, I guess — excuse me, I
think Isaac lived about here, I guess.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Well, put a little dot there.
530 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
A. And my store is right here, and we run the
line right up —
By Mr. LYONS. — We will say here is the letter
"N" marked, which is Blind Isaac's, you think he
lived easterly where the letter "N" is now marked
in that plat 1 A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is close to the beach? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, who told you where your brother's prop-
erty was? A. Well, we had it measured up.
Q. Who told you where to go and measure up ?
A. I came over with him ; he was there too.
Q. How^ did you find out where the property was ?
A. Well, I came over there with him, he showed
me — he knew where it w^as, I guess.
Q. Who? A. My brother.
Q. He showed you where the corners ought to be ?
A. Of course, because Isaac's claimed this side,
and we put one post in that many feet off.
Q. How's that?
A. Where the Dalton Street are now claimed
now — there is a street called Dalton Street; Isaac's
is right this side and we run the posts right from here
up.
Q. How did you know when to quit, how far to
run?
A. We run up as far as where the sawmill is.
Q. What did you run awa,y up there for?
A. We had to take enough ground for fifteen
acres.
Q. You just measured off fifteen acres, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. II inch man et al. 531
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Do you know how many square feet it takes to
make an acre ? A. No, sir.
Q. How did you know where to put your corners
then? A. He had it marked up.
Q. Oh, he had it marked off when you put the
fence up ?
A. I don 't know ; not for me he had it marked.
Q. Then you found the marks already there when
you built the fence around there %
A. I said I onl}^ built part of it.
Q. Did you find the marks there, the corner posts ?
A. No, marks all along.
Q. That your brother had put there ?
A. I don't know whether he put it there or had it
put there.
Q. Where were those posts?
A. One corner where my store is now.
Q. Where was the other?
A. The other was away up near the sawmill.
Q. Did you go up to see that corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When ? A. Not many times.
Q. When was the first time ?
A. That was in December.
Q. You went out there in December, did you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I thought you said a while ago you hadn't been
up there in December, that you only ran that w^ay
thirty or forty feet?
A. No, you asked me whether in the summer time
I was in there and I said no.
532 Solomon Ripinskij vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. You went out there in the winter time, did
you?
A. I was out there when I fixed the fence.
Q. I thought you said you only worked two days
on the fence?
A. Yes, sir, the balance I came and looked on.
Q. You were out to the sa^\Tnill when the^^ built
that fence out there, were you ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And saw the corner post there at the time %
A. No, not the corner post — plenty of posts there.
Q. Did you see any corner post marking the
northeast corner of the Ripinski tract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were the markings on that post?
A. Well, I think it was a piece of a board, or not
a board but about ten by twelve, something like that —
Q. You think it was a ten by twelve ?
A. Not 10x12 ; just a post like.
Q. What kind of a post was it?
A. Regular post from a tree.
Q. AVhat was marked on that post ?
A. I don't know any marks at all.
Q. And that was the northwest corner of the Rip-
inski tract?
A. It was a corner, I don't know which one.
Q. You have lived there for eight years — 3^ou
know the directions, don't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which is the northwest corner?
A. There's the northwest corner, I guess.
Q. At the sawmill? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, the sawmill was there at the time, was it ?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 533
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. No, sir, the sawmill wasn't there yet; it was
farther out.
Q. It was farther away at that time %
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It has been moved since that?
A. It has been moved it once or twice, I think.
Q. The sawmill, then, was farther out at the time
you were up there?
A. Nearly to the street then; yes.
Q. The sawmill was there at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Don't you know as a matter of fact the saw-
mill wasn't there at all for a year after that?
A. Oh, I say where the sawmill has been.
Q. Well, where did you build the fence from the
sawmill, which way did you go then?
A. Up to the Mission ground.
Q. In w^hat direction ?
A. Well, down to the beach.
Q. And all of this fence was built in December?
A. Yes, sir^
Q. A two-wire fence, posts set ten feet apart?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Set in the ground between two and three feet
deep? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much snow was on the ground at that
time? A. Considerable snow on it; yes.
Q. Who dug those post holes?
A. The Indians — natives.
Q. And there was considerable snow on the
ground? A. Yes, sir.
534 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. The ground was frozen pretty hard, was if?
A. No, I don't think it was ver}^ hard.
Q. You know you saw them digging those post-
holes?
A. Took them a pretty long time to do it; yes,
sir.
Q. And the ground was frozen prett}^ hard,
wasn't if? A. Yes, it was frozen pretty hard.
Q. How deep down was it frozen?
A. I don't know — it was frozen, part of it, I
guess.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Ripin, Mr. Lyons has
asked you if it took you two days to build forty feet
of fence; I understood you to say that forty feet of
that fence was westerly. Do you mean you only built
forty feet of fence, or did you include in your work
for those two days the part of the fence that you
built in front of Ripinski's house to the north and
south line ? Just the forty feet to the westward, or
the part built in front of the house as well ?
Objected to as leading, and suggesting the answer
desired of the witness.
A. Well, from the warehouse dow^n to the corner.
Q. You first built from the warehouse down to
the corner — A. And then up to —
Q. And then the forty feet to the westward?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Lyons, asked you several questions
about where you were when that fence was being
built and what you were doing at Haines and Chil-
G. W. HincJiman et al. 535
(Testimony of ^I. Ripin.)
kat; I want to ask you if during the time that fence
was being built anything was being done with Sol.
Ripinski's stock of goods over at Chilkat?
Objected to as not proper redirect examination.
A. We were fixing up the storehouse and ware-
house to bring some of the goods over.
Q. And you were actually bringing some of the
goods over at the time, weren't you?
Objected to as leading.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, answer the question I asked
you. A. Yes, sir, we were fixing up the store.
Q. Were you engaged in the work of helping fix
up the store, too?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, you say you were told by the
surveyors who surveyed Sol. Ripinski's townsite —
homestead claim, that it was necessary to put it in
that funny shape there on account of the fact that
the Mission line was a surveyed line and well estab-
lished line? A. That's what I heard him say.
Object to the ciuestion and move to strike the an-
swer for the reason that the question is leading and
an unfair quotation of the witnesses' testimony, and
he said nothing about a well-established line.
Q. I'll ask you now to state what explanation the
surveyor gave of the fact that Sol. Ripinski's sur-
veyed Homestead Claim, No. 573 as appears by
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1, what reason did you ever
hear the surveyor give for putting it in that shape ?
536 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Object to the question for the reason that counsel
in his former question has indicated to the witness
what he wants his answer to be, and it is a mere
subterfuge.
A. Well, he said the line on the Mission side has
been surveyed and they've got to run it even with
the Mission line and the other line of course nm it
in kind of an easterly way.
Q. That's the way you understood his explana-
tion? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't know whether that's the law, the
rules or regulations governing surveyors or not, do
you? A. Ko, sir, I just heard him say that.
Q. When 3^ou went to building a fence to enclose
the tract of land you supposed Sol. Ripinski bought
from Mrs. Dickinson, you knew the land was in-
cluded between the Mission and Blind Isaac's, didn't
you?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this fence you say you built or helped
to build was to inclose a tract of land from the Mis-
sion to Blind Isaac's house, and fronting on the
beach, and running back so as to include this fifteen
acres as near as was told you by your brother Sol.
Ripinski, the defendant in this case?
Objected to as leading.
A. Fifteen acres; yes, sir.
Q. Did you know, or did you have any idea of
laying out or inclosing any such a tract of land, any
tract of land in the shape that Survey No. 573 is ac-
G. W. Hhichman et al. 537
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
tualh^ made there as shown on this Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 1?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and leading.
A. Just with marks across, that way.
Q. Was it your idea to build any fence around
any such a tract of land as this marked Survey No.
573, with all of those jogs in if?
Same objection.
A. No, sir, right in a straight line as near as we
could, of course.
Q. Did you know at that time about the Dalton
acre"? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether or not you included the Dalton
acre in the fence you built.
A. No, sir; we didn't fence that off.
Q. Did you purposely leave that Dalton acre out*?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Lyons has asked you a good many ques-
tions about changing your name, Mr. Ripin.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who changed your name?
A. The Judge in the court; I got a lawj^er and he
took it to the court.
Q. It was done in open court, was it?
Q. Before the Judge of the court?
A. Yes, sir; and I think I have got the number
of the suit, too.
Q. Number of what?
A. I got two orders from the Court, one of them
538 Solomon Fipinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
to get my insurance, and the other to the Masonic
lodge.
Q. That is, you got certified copies of the order?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Was there an}^ secrecy about it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was it done behind closed doors ?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir ; it was advertised in the paper, too.
Q. It was advertised in the paper you had made
application to change your name ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was your name changed?
A. In Cincinnati.
Q. How long ago?
A. Let's see; seventy-five —
Q. Was it 1875 or 1895?
A. I guess it was '95^ — no, '75.
Q. Well, look at your card and see — never mind
whether it was 1875 or 1895 — it was before you came
to Alaska ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And before you came to Haines Mission ?
A. Yes, sir — Oh, here it is — it was 1895.
Q. Mr. Eipin, how long had you been at Haines
when you helped to build this fence — how long had
you been up around Haines or Chilkat ?
A. I came about November 22d.
Q. You came here in November, on the 22d, 1897 ?
A. Yes, sir; I left —
Q. Wait a moment; don't go so fast — and this
fence was built in December of that year?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 539
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Did you know the natives very well in that
short time %
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you know the name of any of the natives
in 1897 that helped 3^ou to build that fence?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever see any of them again to call
them b}' name or know who they were?
A. I couldn't now.
Q. Do you know the last name of that man
Adolph that helped you to build the fence %
A. I onh^ know the first name; I don't know the
last — I think there is somebody here that knows it.
Q. Do you know whether Grant Baldwin knows
it?
A. Yes, sir; I think he knows it — is he here?
Q. He was watclmian at the Chilkat cannery,
wasn't he?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I understand' you to say that after that fence
was built you say the fence standing there built — so
you know the fence was built all right ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You saw it even after they quit working on it ?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
540 Solomon Biiyinslcy vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
E ecro'ss-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Just a moment, Mr. Ripin, don't
hnrry. You stated in reply to one of Mr. Jennings '
questions that you built that fence so as to include a
tract making fifteen acres ?
A. Yes, sir ; it was.
Q. Answer the question — did you state that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You built that fence now, so as to include a
tract equalling fifteen acres — is that true "^
Objected to as unfair, and I insist that counsel has
willfully omitted the last part of my question, and
ask the stenographer to read the question I asked.
(Referee reads:) "And this fence you say you
built or helped to build was to inclose a tract of land
from the Mission to Blind Isaac's house, and front-
ing on the beach, and running back so as to include
this fifteen acres as near as was told you by your
brother Sol. Ripinski, the defendant in this case?"
A. Fifteen acres; yes, sir.
Q. Now, I ask you, Mr. Ripin, if you didn't
build this fence around that tract of land so as to
include fifteen acres'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's true, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir — I didn't build the whole fence; I
helped.
Q. You helped build that fence so as to include a
fifteen- acre tract? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how did you measure that fifteen acres ?
A. I didn't measure it.
Q. Who did?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 5il
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. My brother, I guess.
Q. So when you say that, you don't know any-
thing about it? A. No, sir.
Q. You're depending wholly on your brother for
that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you don't know what area was included
within that fence you helped to build?
A. Not exactly ; no.
Q. Do you know^ anything about it at all?
A. I do; yes, sir.
Q. How many square feet constitutes an acre?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and un-
fair to the witness.
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know^ am^thing at all about how^ much
land is included in an acre?
A. I know, yes, sir; I have to look over it, it has
slipped my mind now.
Q. How do you know, then, how much was in-
cluded or embraced within this fence?
A. I took my brother's w^ord for it.
Q. All you know about it, then, is what your
brother told you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't you of your own knowledge how
much? A. No, I don't.
Q. And you didn't .at the time it was fenced?
A. I understood it was fifteen acres.
Q. I say of your ow^n knowledge you didn't know
how^ nmcli was included in that fence? A. No.
Q. And you don't to this day? A. Yes.
Q. And when you say the fence was built to in-
542 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
elude fifteen acres, you base that assertion on hear-
sa}' — from what your brother told j^ou?
A. Yes, it might have been fourteen acres and
three-quarters, I don't know.
Q. You think you have got it tied down now to
that near fifteen acres ?
A. I don't know — you told me to tell exactly.
Q. And you don't know how many square feet
there are in an acre?
A. I knew, but it slipped my mind now.
Q. Can you give approximately how many feet
square constitute an acre of ground ?
A. No, it's slijDped mj^ mind now.
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and an
attempt of counsel to confuse the witness.
Q. You have no idea ?
A. I have an idea, but it has now slipped my
mind, and I can't get it. AYell, I will ask you that
question, how many feet is it?
Q. I'm not on the witness-stand, sir. Now, ser-
iously, Mr. Eipin, you have no idea —
A. No, I have no idea.
Q. — of how large an area is embraced within an
acre ? A. I can tell you pretty near.
Q. Well, now, approximtely, how many feet
square constitut-e an acre of ground?
A. I think about 300x320 feet.
Q. Three hundred by three hundred and twent}^ ?
A. Or three hundred by two hundred; something
like that.
Q. That's as near as you can guess at this time?
G. W. Hindi luait d al. 543
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it's on that h\^othesis that you would
estimate the amount of acreage included within this
fence that you helped to build for your brother?
A. I haven't measured it — ^somebody else meas-
ured it.
Q. And you don't know how many acres there
were, only what j^our brother told you — is that right ?
A. I was told there was fifteen acres.
Q. I say, aside from hearsay, you don't know
how many acres it included?
A. Well, prett.y near, anyway.
Q. Well, liow do you know, sir — you never meas-
ured it? A. No, sir.
Q. Have j^ou had much dealings with land during
the period of 3^0 ur life ? A. No, sir.
Q. You never owned a hundred and sixty acres
of land in your life, did you ? A. No, sir.
Q. You never owned a foot of land until you
came to Haines? A. No, sir.
Q. Where did you come from?
A. Cincinnati.
Q. Where did you come from to Cincinnati?
A. From Europe.
Q. Poland? A. Yes, sir.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Ripin, Mr. Lyons asked
you if yon knew what fifteen acres is ; did .you know
Mrs. Dickinson sold your brother the land lying be-
tween Blind Isaac 's house and the Mission ?
544 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Objected to as leading and not redirect examina-
tion.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know where that house was, didn't
you — Blind Isaac's?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you began to measure from Blind Isaac's
house, didn't you?
Objected to as leading and also repetition.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripin, before you built the fence
3^our brother, Sol. Ripinski, had his land there staked
out, put up corner stakes ?
Objected to as leading and suggestive, and viciously
so.
A. He did; yes, sir.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Did you see your brother stak-
ing that out, putting the corner stakes around this
property ? A.I did not.
Q. How do you know he did it then?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
We came to it.
How did you know he did it ?
He was around there with us.
You came to the corner stakes, did you?
Yes, sir.
Where did you find them now?
On the way out there.
Just name the point there precisely, sir;
wh€re you found those stakes?
G. W. Hinchman ct al. 545
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Well, somewheres near here, west of Sixth
Avenue.
Q. What kind of a post did you find there?
A. Eegular post, I guess.
Q. I am not asking you for your guesses; I'm
asking you what you know about this, sir — what kind
of a i3ost was tliat?
A. I guess it was a post from a tree; you know
wliat a post is.
Q. How large a post was it ?
A. I don't know it any different from any other
posts.
Q. I 'm asking you about this particular, identical
post — how large a post was \i%
A. I don't know exactly — regular post.
Q. That's the best description you can give of it,
is it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You went and found that post for the Indians,
did you?
A. I went all along tliat line with them.
Q. You hunted it out and found it for the
Indians? A. No, sir.
Q. Who showed it to you ?
A. I seen it there.
Q. AYho showed it to you ?
A. Didn't shov/ it anybody — I looked for a fence
and seen it.
Q. Did you see it before the fence was built or
afterwards ?
A. When the fence was building.
546 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
Q. Had the fence been built onto tlie post at tlie
time you saw it there I A. Yes, sir.
Q. Up to that post? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Right to the corner?
A. Yes, sir; and all around, too.
Q. Oh, that was the corner post of the fence, was
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the wire was nailed onto that post?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is the post you say your brother
had set there some time before that?
A. I don 't know he set it ; he was around there to
show where to put it.
Q. To show you where the corner post should be
set?
A. Not with me, but the parties that put that
fence up.
Q. How do you know ?
A. I know we came over from Chilkat and I went
to the store and he went around with them and showed
them where it was.
Q. And you went to that one corner?
A. No, to the storehouse.
Q. Now^, you've got back to the store again.
Didn't you say 3^ou went to the northeast corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you saw it after the fence had been built
up to it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was made the corner post, was it — of
the fence ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You understand me now?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 547
(Testimony of M. Ripin.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was made the corner post of the fence?
A. Y€s, sir.
Q. Now, how do you know, sir, that post was there
before that fence was built?
A. I didn't say I seen it; I seen the fence all
around and I seen the corner.
Q. You didn't see that corner post there, then,
until after the fence was built?
A. I seen the fence.
Q. You didn't see that corner post there, then,
until after that fence was built? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's true, is it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You saw it after that fence was Imilt, you
mean? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And 3^ou didn't see it there before?
A. No, sir.
Q. That's what I thought. Now, you don't know
whether there was a corner post there before the fence
was built, or not? A. I guess there wasn't.
Q. And, as a matter of fact, you don't know that
there was a corner post there at all? A. I do.
Q. You do ?
A. Well, what would they put that fence on then ?
Q. All right, sir. Now, did you see the southeast
corner post? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you see that — before the fence was
built?
A. No, sir ; I seen it after the fence was built.
Q. And you helped build that fence?
A. Yes, sir ; I did.
548 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of M. Eipin.)
Q. Carried the nails and rolled the wire — what
else was there you had, a shovel and adze 1
A. Adze; yes, sir.
Q. And you had those post-holes how deep, did
you say? A. Two or three feet.
Q. In the frozen ground?
A. Not ver}^ hard frozen.
Q. And you dug them with a shovel and adze?
A. Yes, sir ; the natives dug them, I said.
Q. How could they dig post-holes two or three
feet deep with a shovel and adze?
A. Well, it was dug.
Q. I guess that will do, Mr. Ripin.
[Testimony of G. A. Baldwin, for the Defendant
(Recalled).]
G. A. BALDWIN, recalled on behalf of the de-
fendant, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Baldwin, you know
where the Chilkat cannery is with reference to Chil-
kat — what used to be called the Chilkat Cannery?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far is it from the village, Chilkat,
where j^ou had your store ?
A. It was right in Chilkat.
Q. Did you know a watchman at that cannery by
the name of Adolph ?
A. That was his first name, I think.
Q. What was his last name?
G. W. Hinchman et at. 549
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. It was a Norwegian name; I think it was
Jeceleyn.
Q. Did you know of that man working in or about
Haines in November, 1897 — the latter part of No-
vember— from that until December, sometime'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Working for — did you ever see him assisting
in the building of a fence there ? A. No, sir.
Q. Did jou hear him say anything about having
built a fence for Sol. Ripinski over there f
Objected as leading and hearsay.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You heard him state that ?
Objected to as the rankest hearsay.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— We don't care for that—
I simply wanted to prove to you the existence of
Adolph Jeceleyn.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — You say you never saw this
Adolph Jeceleggin building a fence for Sol. Ripinski ?
A. I never saw him ; no, sir.
Q. And you never saw this fence that Ripin
claims that runs along to the north of this tract in
controversy %
A. I was never back in there, no, sir, not that far.
Q. Were you back over an}^ of those streets —
over Fifth or Sixth avenues there?
A. No sir ; I never had occasion to go over there.
Q. Or Fourth Avenue?
A. I don't Ivnow where they came to now — there
was no streets, then, of course.
550 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
Q. Wlien wei^ you over there the first time, to
Haines ?
A. Well, it was a little while after that deed was
signed, after these people commenced staking oif
lots.
Q. Did 3^ou see anybodj^ over there building a
fence ?
A. These people that were staking their lots were
building fences, yes.
Q. Nobody else that you saw? A. No, sir.
Q. How deep was the snow at that time, if you
remember, Mr. Baldwin?
A. I don't know what part of the year —
Q. I mean along towards the latter part of De-
cember ?
A. Well, it was, I should judge, two feet deep at
least.
Q. The back, or back side of this tract is pretty
well up against the mountain, isn't it — up against
the hill? A. No, just rolling there.
Q. Do you know whether or not the ground was
frozen hard at that time of the year ?
A. Well we had lots of rain that fall, all up
through December — I don't know particularly the
condition of the ground.
Q. You think the snow was about two feet deep ?
A. Yes, sir; the latter part of December.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— How was it in the first part
of December?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 551
(Testimony of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Well, I had no occasion to remember how
deep it was.
Q. You don't know anything about that?
A. No, sir.
Reeross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Where did you land when you
first went to that country?
A. At Chilkat ; we got all of our goods there, the
steamer landed there.
Q. And you came over this trail immediately after
the deed was executed, from Chilkat to Haines?
A. No, the trail don't run that way.
Q. Doesn't that trail run along — didn't it run
along where Main Street is now ?
A. No, sir; not from Chilkat to Haines.
Q. Was there a trail there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Didn 't you go over that trail shortly after this
conveyance alleged to have been made by Mrs. Dick-
inson to Ripinski?
A. Some time after that; yes, sir.
Q. You didn't see any wire fence to the north of
what is now known as Main Street for any great dis-
tance, did you ?
A. I believe 1 testified that before.
Q. Did you see any wire fence along the south-
erly boundary of this tract of land in controversy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where?
A. I testified from Tim Vogel's corner, a wire
across there.
Q. Across where? Indicate on the map?
552 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of G. A. Baldmn.)
A. It would be the northerl}^ corner of the
cleared ground of the Mission.
Q. Tim Vogel's corner is down here in Block
No. 2? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did that wire extend now?
A. Where you have j^our pencil there, and across
this way.
Q. Well, how far did it extend — across from the
Mission to Tim Vogels'?
A. Well, I should say I seen it out there prob-
abh^ as far as where Warne's chicken-house is — well,
it was the other side of that because I had a lot in
there.
Q. That wire fence ran across from the Mission
to Tim Vogel's corner, did it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then along the side of this block a dis-
tance of how^ far, would you say?
A. I couldn't say — it was out in here somewhere,
because I came over it.
Q. There was no fence down by — along the side
of Block No. 1 — no wire fence?
A. Not that I noticed, no, sir.
Q. What kind of a fence was that one you have
described? A. One wire is all I noticed.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— You wouldn't say for sure
there was but one wire?
Objected to as leading.
A. Well, it might have been torn down — people
had been climbing over it.
Q. That's all you saw — one wire?
G. W. HincJiman et al. 553
(Testimoii}^ of G. A. Baldwin.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in going from Chilkat to Haines, you
don't go out that old trail marked Main Street here
at all, do you?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. You follow the beach on to a point nearly
opposite the post — the Military Post and then cut
over the hill there and go to Chilkat "?
A. You go right through where the Post is now.
Q. This trail, or Main Street as they call it now.
would take you away over to one side, wouldn't it,
nowhere near Chilkat at all?
A. Diagonally away from it; yes, sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that that fence didn't
extend any further than Warne's chicken-house, or
that you didn't follow it any further than that?
Objected to as leading.
A. I didn't see it any longer.
Q. You didn't go any further to look?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you don't know how much further it ex-
tended?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, sir.
Q. What name have you known the witness that
just left the stand, Mr. Ripin — what name have you
known him in business by Mr. Baldwin?
Objected to as incompetent and immaterial.
A. Well, when I first knew him I knew him as
Ripinski's brother, and so I —
554 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Wasn't he called Ripinski?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
Q. When he first came to the country he used to
sign his name as Ripinski, did he?
A. I do not know.
[Testimony of Solomon Ripinski, for the Defend-
ant.]
SOLOMON RIPINSKI, the defendant in said
cause, being first duly sworn, testified as follows on
Direct Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Ripinski, when did you
first come to Alaska? A. In 1866, sir.
Q. Where did you go, what part of Alaska?
A. That I mean to Haines.
Q. When did you first come to Alaska at all?
A. In 1882.
Q. What part of Alaska did you settle at--
where did you first go when you came to the coun-
try? A. I first came to Juneau.
Q. What did you do in Juneau?
A. I stayed in Juneau quite a while, and then I
went to Sitka.
Q. Well, how long did you stay in Sitka?
A. In Sitka I stayed about a year.
Q. Then where did you go?
A, I went to the Aleutian Islands.
Q. What place? A. Unalaska.
Q. About what year was it you went to Un-
alaska? A. In 1884.
G. W. Hinchman et ah 555
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. What occupation did you engage in — what did
you do at Unalaska?
A. I was sent out there by the Bureau of Edu-
cation to establish Government schools.
Q. To establish Government schools. How long
did you stay out to the Westward there?
A. One year.
Q. Did you establish or assist in establishing any
Government schools out there? A. I did.
Q. Well, that brings us down to 1885 —
A. I beg 3^our pardon; it was 1885 I was at Un-
alaska.
Q. And you stayed there one year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. I was transferred from the Alaska Islands to
Haines, or "Dashu," the Indians called it, at Port-
age Cove.
Q. There wasn't any mission there at all then?
A. No mission; there was a building, no mission.
Q. Were there any other white people at Portage
Cove at that time, Mr. Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was there? A. Dickinson.
Q. George Dickinson? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was he doing there?
A. He was a trader, running a store.
Q. Where did he live at that time?
A. In the house which I occupy at present.
Q. In 1886 that was? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who had preceded George Dickinson in run-
ning that trading-post, store there ?
556 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. His widow and son.
Q. No, preceded'? Been there before?
A. The Northwest Trading Company.
Q. They had abandoned the land there by the
time you got there or transferred it to Dickinson?
Objected to as leading, and the record is the best
evidence of any transfer.
Q. What kind of a trader was George Dickinson,
who did he trade with there?
A. The natives.
Q. Buying furs and selling goods?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, did you become acquainted with his
wife? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was his wife?
A. Sarah Dickinson.
Q. State whether or not she was an Indian
woman of ordinary, or unusual intelligence.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which was it?
A. She was very intelligent, because I used to
invite her Sundays to preach to the natives; I was
no missionary but I gave her the privilege, she could
come to the school-house and preach. She was in-
terpreter for the Presbyterian Church before that.
Q. To interpret from English into Klinget?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could she write? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could. she read? A. Yes, sir
Q. How old a woman was she at the time von ffot
there? Just estimate her age?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 557
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Oh, about fift}^ — little over, I guess, at that
time.
Q. Well, was there any other white person at
Portage Cove other than George Dickinson at the
time you first went there?
A. No, sir, not at all.
Q. How close to Haines, or to this little tract of
land here did anyone live — any white man live ?
A. Nobody lived there.
Q. How close to it — where was the nearest white
man outside of you and George Dickinson?
A. I don't believe there was any white man
there besides the two of us.
Q. Did you know any white men in Juneau?
A. Juneau was the nearest place; yes.
Q. Now, that was in 1886, as I understand it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, in 1897 — first, when did George Dickin-
son die?
A. If I ain't mistaken — if my memory serves me
right, it was in 1887 or 1888—1 think it was 1887.
Q. Did he leave any children?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were their names?
A. Billy Dickinson, and the girl Sarah.
Q. Did his wife survive him? A. Yes.
Q. What became of Mrs. Sarah Dickinson after
her husband died? A. Billy's mother?
Q. Yes. A. She kept the store there.
Q. At Haines? A. Yes, sir.
558 Solomon Ripinsky us.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. How long did she keep that store — did she
run the same kind of a store as her husband, trading
with the natives? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were you doing there during that
time'? A. You mean after a year?
Q. Yes.
A. I was kind of superintendent of schools, or I
taught school till they sent a school teacher.
Q. Who sent you to do that?
A. The Government. Generally after I would
establish a school I would teach it until I notified the
Department it was established and then they would
send a teacher — instruct the teacher to go there and
then they would transfer me to another place to
establish another school.
Q. Are you a married man, Mr. Ripinski?
A. No, sir, I'm a bachelor.
Q. How old are you?
A. I'm over forty-five — old enough to vote.
Q. You'i'e a little sensitive about your age?
A. Yes, that's right; I have to.
Q. You prefer not to tell how old you are?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, how long did Mrs. Sarah Dickinson con-
tinue living in that storehouse that her husband,
George Dickinson, was living in when you first came
to Haines?
A. Well, she must have kept in business three
or four years.
Q. Well, then what did she do?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 559
(Testimon}' of Solomou Eipinski.)
A. Then she rented the store to Dalton to store
away things in and she went to Chilkat to live.
Q. Did you remove from Haines to Chilkat at
any time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
A. I stayed one j^ear in Haines and a teacher
came — I resided —
Q. You stayed at Haines a year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. I resigned, and got a position with the can-
nery.
Q. Resigned and took a position with the can-
nery— whereabouts was that cannery?
A. At Chilkat and Pyramid Harbor.
Q. At Chilkat and Pyramid Harbor two can-
neries in operation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, they were run by white people?
A. Yes, they come up during the fishing season,
and I run their store for them.
Q. When you said white people lived no nearer
there than Juneau, you meant permanent residents
then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The white people who run the canneries
would come up during the fishing season and then
they would go back and there Avouldn't be anyone
there until the next season? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What position did you get in the cannery
then?
A. I was kind of officer, overseer like, pajdng out
money for the fish and also run the store.
560 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. Who owned the cannery?
A. El Beck and sons.
Q. They run both canneries, did they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where were they from?
A. San Francisco.
Q. Then how long did you stay in the cannery
— working for the cannery? A. Until 1889.
Q. Then Avhat did you do?
A. Then I went below to Portland.
Q. And how long did you stay there?
A. Very short while; went in business there.
Q. And when did you come back?
A. When I came back I opened a store in Chil-
kat of my own.
Q. In Chilkat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you came back was Mrs. Sarah Dickin-
son still living there at Chilkat? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I want to direct your attention now to along
about the first of December, 1897 — did you have any
business transaction with Mrs. Sarah Dickinson at
that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You bought some land from her?
A. Yes, sir, bought some land from her.
Q. Did you know what land she claimed to own
at Haines?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, the deed
or record being the best evidence.
Q. State what lands she claimed to own at that
time — to own at Haines at that time?
Same objection.
G. W. Hiiichman et al. 561
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. She told me she had sixteen acres of land
there. Now, if you will permit me I will state why
I did that —
Q. Go ahead and state it.
A. When I first came to Chilkat the natives were
very ugly, they mistreated George Dickinson; they
used to come to his store and abuse him —
Plaintiffs move to strike all of this testimony as
incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not
bearing on any issue whatever in this case.
A. — and the natives, after I came there they had
respect for me because a gunboat brought me up
here, one of the Government cruisers brought me to
Chilkat and the white people were always mistreated
by the natives before that. So we called together
the chiefs and the leading natives and some of the
officers gave them a lecture, told them to leave Mr.
Ripinski alone — we will leave Mr. Ripinski and we
will come for the reports and if it happens there is
something wrong goes with him we will come with
the gunboat — in fact, they had shelled the town of
Killisnoo previous to that and the natives wei'e
deathly afraid of the gunboats — they used to call
them the "Gum Boots" and whenever Dickinson got
into trouble he would send for me and when I came
down there the natives used to leave him alone, in
fact, they were afraid of me. I found out Dickinson
was an Odd Fellow and in fact we locked horns to-
gether and was quite good friends, and he had a
grown girl. We used to take walks together, and
he says he has got sixteen acres and in the com-
562 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
mencement of the clearing we have got a garden
and he took me along and showed me where the
posts were so I would know where that sixteen acres
was.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer as not respon-
sive to the question; and not proper evidence of
ownership of land.
Q. Now, this was George Dickinson hmiself, was
it? A. The old man himself; yes, sir.
Q. He told you at that time, in 188-1, when you
went there, the boundaries of that sixteen-acre
tract? A. It was 1886.
Q. That he claimed — the sixteen acres of land ?
A. If I ain't mistaken, he claimed for about six-
teen acres he was about clearing.
Q. And he showed you the posts of the sixteen
acres he intended to clear?
Plaintiffs object to this testimony, first for the
reason that any claim made by George Dickinson
isn't evidence of ownership in lands possessed b.v
these plaintiffs, and cannot be admitted to prove any
of the issues in this case even if he ever made the
statement, being purely self-serving declarations.
Q. Now, where were these posts he showed you,
these stakes — I'll ask you to point them out as near
as you can on this Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.
A. That must be somewheres about here —
By Mr. LYONS.— Indicate, Mr. Ripinski, on the
map, so the reporter can get it into the record. To
say it's "here" doesn't indicate anytliing at all.
G. W. Hinclnnan et al. 563
(Testimonv of Solomon Ripinski.)
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I now call your attention
to Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, which is a map of
Haines, or is supposed to be a map of what is called
Haines, then called Portage Cove. I call your atten-
tion to the space down here inclosed in black marks
called the Ripinski Homestead — that's on the east
side of the tract. I call your attention also to these
directions here, showing which is north, east, south
and west. Now, I'll ask you about how far — I'll
ask 3'ou to locate on that map, on that plat approxi-
mately, as near as j^ou can, about where those stakes
were if you can locate them?
A. AYell, that would be 2,400 feet, somewheres
around here. Sixth Avenue.
Q. Along about up to Sixth Avenue, one of them
w^as?
A. Yes, I believe it might be a little farther,
might be a little on this line.
Q. AYell. whereabouts on the beach were those
stakes ?
A. Right here in front; high-water mark.
Q. AVell, where — indicate it by some point there ?
A. Well, say from south to north or north to
south.
Q. Is there any mark there — you can describe the
mark, the point on the 1)eaeh there b}^ a "C" and a
A. Well, here is "C" and here is "D."
Q. Now, go ahead; you say he told you about
where these stakes were; now you locate them on the
map, approximately, where they were.
564 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Well, when I bought it I had no trouble, I
knew —
Q. Well, we don't want to get at that yet; vrhat
else did he say to you ?
Objected to as calling for hearsay, immaterial and
irrelevant, and incomi^etent.
Q. That was in 1886, was it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you think he died about 1887, you said'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you had this deal with Mrs. Dick-
inson, did you know how much land she claimed over
there at Haines ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Sixteen acres, she told me.
Q. She told you it was sixteen acres'?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did she tell ,vou anything about liaving sold
one acre out of that tract to Dalton '?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and not the best evidence, the deed or convey-
ance being the best and only evidence.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, what did she tell you?
Objected to as calling for hearsay, incom]~>etont,
irrelevant and immaterial.
A. That was after, when I was in Chilkat.
Q. I'm talking about this time; when you made
the deal?
A. Yes, I was the one made out the deal for the
acre.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 565
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. You made out the deed for her?
A. Yes, sir ; Mrs. Dalton came into my place, tlie
postoffice, I was then postmaster, and Mrs. Dickin-
son told me she has sold an acre of land to Mrs.
Dalton, and I wrote out that deed myself.
Q. Did she say what corner of the tract the acre
w^as to come out of?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, the deed being the best evidence.
A. Yes, Mrs. Dalton says she wanted that part,
thaf acre.
Q. Which part was that ?
Same objection.
A. Marked ^'C" there, the southeast corner.
Q. Do .you remember when that was?
A. It must have been a year before I bought the
rest of it.
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer of the witness
concerning his having bought the rest of it, as there
is no evidence in the record that he ever bought any
of it.
Q. Now, you had a business transaction with
Mrs. Dickinson about the first or second of Decem-
ber, 1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Please state what that business transaction
was ?
Objected to for the reason that the transaction
concerning which the witness is to testify is in writ-
ing and that is the best evidence.
A. I had Mr. Rogers to buy that fifteen acres of
land and the improvements from her.
566 Solonion Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. Had Mr. Eogers bu}^ it for joii "?
A. For me ; yes.
Objected to and plaintiffs move to strike the an-
swer of the witness for the reason that the deed, con-
veyance or whatever instrument it was is the best
evidence of what transfer, if any, was made.
Q. Well, why do you say you had Mr. Rogers to
buy it for you — if you bought it why don't you say
you bought it ?
Objected to as leading, and an attempt of counsel
to contradict his own witness.
Q. Did you buy it or did you not?
Objected to as leading.
A. I bought it.
Q. Through whom did 3^ou buy it?
A. Mr. Rogers.
Q. What, if anything, did you pay her for it 1
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not the best evidence.
A. In the first place I paid her two hundred dol-
lars.
Q. What did she give you for the two hundred
dollars'? A. A deed —
Q. No, I mean what did you get in return for
your two hundred —
By Mr. LYONS. — I object to counsel interrupt-
ing the witness — were you going to say a deed?
A. Yes, sir, and 1 was going to say some more.
Plaintiffs object to the question as it calls for an
answer which should be given hy the deed itself; and
G. W. Hinchman et al. 567
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
oral evidence cannot be admitted a>« evidence of a
transfer of real estate.
B.y Mr. JENNINGS.— Well, she gave you a deed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A deed for sixteen acres of land?
Objected to for same reason as above.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now hand you a paper which has been
marked Defendant's Exhibit No. 7 for Identification,
and I '11 ask you if you ever saw that paper before ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When, where, and under what circumstances
did you see that paper first ?
A. I made it out myself in Chilkat, Alaska, De-
cember 2d, 1897.
Q. Is that the deed that Mrs. Dickinson gave
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know her signature?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that her signature to that deed?
A. That's her signature.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I see this is marked for
identification, but I think it was offered before. I
now offer this deed marked Defendant's Exhibit No.
7 for Identification in evidence, to make sure if it
wasn't offered before.
Plaintiffs object to the deed being received in evi-
dence ?
1. For the reason that the description in the in-
strument itself is not sufficiently definite to enable
568 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
anyone to locate the boundaries of the property or
land sought to be conveyed.
2. For the reason that said deed further appears
to have been acknowledged before the grantee there-
in, the defendant herein, as notary public.
3. For the further reason that said deed appears
to have been recorded with the U. S. Commissioner
at Dyea on the 15th day of December, 1897, at a time
when such Commissioner at Dyea had no power or
authority to record any instrument, and such Com-
missioner was not at that time an ex-of&cio recorder
for Alaska and the only recording office where in-
struments pertaining to real estate at Haines could
be recorded at that time so as to constitute a con-
structive or any notice to these plaintiffs or anyone
else, was at Juneau, Alaska.
4. That said deed appears on the face thereof to
have been subsequently^ recorded in the recording
office at Juneau, to wit, on the 28th day of January,
1899, which date is long subsequent to the accrual
of the rights of the plaintiffs in this action and long
subsequent to the time when said premises were actu-
ally located by the plaintiffs and their grantors.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, I'll ask you to look at
that deed again that I have just introduced in evi-
dence, and say whether or not that deed is in the
condition so far as the contents of the deed are con-
cerned, as it was when Mrs. Dickinson signed if?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 569
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
A. Yes, sir, just as it was — little older, that's all.
Q. Were the words "adjoining the Mission
ground on the south and the Indian village on the
North" in there when she signed it?
A. Yes, sir; she suggested we put that on.
Q. She suggested that herself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that deed signed?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Signed in the postoffice.
Q. At Chilkat, Alaska ? A. Yes, sir,
Q. What is meant there — what was the Indian
village ?
A. The Indian village you see in Haines.
Q. Where is the Indian village in Haines, if
you know — how far is the Indian village — what
house is the commencement of the Indian village ?
A. Well, Blind Isaac's house.
Q. Who is Blind Isaac?
A. He's a native — blind man.
Q. Is he alive now?
A. No, he died about a year ago.
Q. Where did he live — locate on Plaintiff's Ex-
hibit No. 1 as near as you can approximately where
Blind Isaac lived ?
A. Well, about east — northeast, it's supposed to
be.
Q. Just take a pencil and mark there as near as
you can about where Blind Isaac lived^ — mark a
square and an *'X."
568 Solomon Ripinshij vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
anyone to locate the boundaries of the property or
land sought to be conveyed.
2. For the reason that said deed further appears
to have been acknowledged before the grantee there-
in, the defendant herein, as notary public.
3. For the further reason that said deed appears
to have been recorded with the U. S. Commissioner
at Dyea on the 15th day of December, 1897, at a time
when such Commissioner at Dyea had no power or
authority to record any instrument, and such Com-
missioner was not at that time an ex-officio recorder
for Alaska and the only recording office where in-
struments pertaining to real estate at Haines could
be recorded at that time so as to constitute a con-
structive or any notice to these plaintiffs or anyone
else, was at Juneau, Alaska.
4. That said deed appears on the face thereof to
have been subsequently recorded in the recording
office at Juneau, to wit, on the 28th day of January,
1809, which date is long subsequent to the accrual
of the rights of the plaintiffs in this action and long
subsequent to the time when said premises were actu-
ally located by the plaintiffs and their grantors.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, I'll ask you to look at
that deed again that I have just introduced in evi-
dence, and say whether or not that deed is in the
condition so far as the contents of the deed are con-
cerned, as it was when Mrs. Dickinson signed if?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 569
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Yes, sir, just as it was — little older, that's all.
Q. Were the words "adjoining the Mission
ground on the south and the Indian village on the
North" in there when she signed it?
A. Yes, sir; she suggested we x)ut that on.
Q. She suggested that herself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was that deed signed?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Signed in the postoffice.
Q. At Chilkat, Alaska? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is meant there — what was the Indian
village ?
A. The Indian village you see in Haines.
Q. Where is the Indian village in Haines, if
you know — how far is the Indian village — what
house is the commencement of the Indian village ?
A. Well, Blind Isaac's house.
Q. Who is Blind Isaac?
A. He's a native — blind man.
Q. Is he alive now?
A. No, he died about a year ago.
Q. Where did he live — locate on Plaintiff's Ex-
hibit No. 1 as near as you can approximately where
Blind Isaac lived ?
A. Well, about east — northeast, it's supposed to
be.
Q. Just take a pencil and mark there as near as
you can about where Blind Isaac lived" — mark a
square and an "X.
? J
570 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
A. (Witness marks on plat.)
Q. That was the beginning now, I understand
you to say, the first house of the Indian village ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Beyond that to the north there were other
Indian houses, were there not ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how far it is from the Mission
line to Blind Isaac's house'? A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how far?
A. Three hundred and twenty-five feet.
Q. Have you ever measured it?
A. Yes, sir; that is, from the monument.
Q. That big rock — large rock on the beach?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's the beginning of the Mission line?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Blind Isaac's is 325 feet to the north of
that rock, is it, Mr. Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's a well-known, historical landmark
around Haines, isn't is — that rock?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir, that's right.
Q. Well, now, you paid — did you pay Mrs. Dick-
inson for this property? A. I did.
Q. How much?
A. Two hundred dollars.
Q. Two hundred dollars. Now, was there any
dispute between .you and Mrs. Dickinson by which
she wanted to go back on the contract, the deed, the
sale?
G. W. Hinchman et ah oil
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what it was.
A. She nsed to deal with me ; there was five dol-
lars acconnt, and I took that off the money, and
when she got home she thought I ought to throw that
in, and she connnenced grumbling and she got that
money and brought it back — no, Rogers came back
and says she wants five dollars more, and so I gave
it to Eogers and he paid her the five dollars.
Q. Now, did she or Billy Dickinson ever claim
an additional fift}" dollars to the two hundred dol-
lars that you paid her ; did she or her son Billy ?
A. Later on she came back —
Objected to as leading and immaterial.
A. Later on she came back ; brought the money
back several days afterwards, and when Rogers came
about it I told him and he went to her and he say^s
Billy had some falling out about it, sa^^s she ought
to have fifty dollars more, and so I purchased the
fifty dollars and he took the mone}^ to her and it was
all right.
Q. What did 3^ou do with the two hundred dollars
that Rogers brought back?
A. He took it to her.
Q. Did you get any receipt then for the two hun-
dred and fifty dollars you paid her altogether?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I hand you a paper which I will ask the sten-
ographer to mark Defendant's Exhibit No. 8 for
572 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Identification. (Marked.) I'll ask you if that's
the receipt you gof?
A. Yes, sir, that's the receipt.
Q. Whose signature is that ?
A. That's F. A. Eoger's.
Q. No, they are just witnesses. What is the sig-
nature on that receipt? A. Sarah Dickinson.
Q. And by whom is it witnessed?
A. F. A. Rogers and John A. Smith, the Commis-
sioner.
Q. John U. Smith, isn't it?
A. Yes, that's right.
O. Who was John U. Smith ?
A. United States Commissioner at Dyca, and
afterwards I think at Skaguay.
Q. Now, that receipt is dated December 21st,
1897? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you get any deed or conveyance
from Billy Dickinson for his interest ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We offer this Defendant's Identification No.
8, the receipt in evidence.
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, in no way tends to prove any of the issues in
this case.
I now hand the stenographer a paper marked
"Quitclaim Deed," which I will ask him to mark
Defendant's Exhibit No. 9 for Identification
(marked), and I'll ask you if that isn't the deed you
received from Billy Dickinson. A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you receive that deed?
G. W. Hinchman et ah 573
(Testimoii}' of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. On the 21st of December, 1897.
Q. At the same time 3^ou received the receipt?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. We now offer that deed in evidence.
Objected to for the reason that the description in
the deed is so indefinite as not to indicate what prop-
erty is souglit to be conveyed and is not sufficiently
definite to enable an ordinarily intelligent person to
ascertain the boundaries of the property sought to
be conveyed.
2. For the further reason that there is nothing
to indicate that Bill}^ Dickinson had any right what-
ever to sell any land in the vicinity of Haines to
the defendant or anybody else; there is nothing in
the evidence to indicate that he could by any possi-
bility inherit any right, title or interest in any prop-
erty at Haines except possibly a small tract actually
occupied by his mother at Haines and formerly actu-
ally occupied and used by his father, which small
tract is conceded to be the premises now actuall^v oc-
cupied by Mr. Ripinski, the defendant in this action.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, I forgot to ask you if this
first deed I submitted to you, to wit, Defendant's
Exhibit No. 7, was executed on the day on which it
bears date? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, now, then, when you paid him the $200
and knocked off the $5 on account and had paid $50
to Billy Dickinson, did the old lady seem satisfied ?
Objected to as immaterial and leading.
Q. Did she complain au}^ more?
Objected to as immaterial and leading.
574 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimonv of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. No more, sir.
Q. Has she ever made any complaint to you from
that time to the time of her death'?
Same objection.
A. No, sir.
Q. Has Billy?
A. Well, Billy did until I paid him fifty dollars,
and then he was all right.
Q. So he did, until you paid him the fifty dollars
on the 21st of December? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after that he never made any more com-
plaint ? A. Oh, no.
Q. When did Mrs. Dickinson die — she is dead,
isn't she?
A. She died in Metlahkahtla ; I don't know the
date.
Q. How long ago about?
A. Perhaps three years ago; I don't know.
Q. Now, you had some trouble, a lawsuit, with
some men you claim jmnped your property there,
didn't you, one time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. At Juneau? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Mrs. Dickinson a witness for you on that
trial? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How old a woman was she at the time of that
trial?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Well, she must be close to sixty; I don't know
exactly; sixty or perhaps more.
G. W. Hinchman et ah bib
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Now, after you had purchased this land from
Mrs. Dickinson on the second day of December,
1897, state what, if anything, you did towards taking
visible possession of if?
A. Yes, sir. Right after I bought it, I went to
Rev. Warne as he had a lot of barbed wire coils lay-
ing in the snow outside and I asked to buy it and
he don't want to sell it but he says if you will de-
posit fifty dollars you can and if you will return the
other wires; and so I got that wires and I got the
natives together and myself, and also my brother
and commenced to wiring up the place.
Q. Did you indicate to your brother and these
natives what land to fence ?
A. Yes, I show^ed them the lines — went with
them first and showed them the lines.
Q. Did you show them — where did the}^ began,
whereabouts on the beach did they begin fencing?
Objected to as .leading.
A. They commenced to fence right here.
Q. Well, for instance, how far from Blind Isaac's
house did they commence that fence %
A. Well, they commenced about in the front
here.
Q. That don't describe anything — would you say
in front of your store ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did they run then — in what direction?
A. North.
Q. Up to where?
A. Well, to near Blind Isaac's house.
Q. Pretty close to Blind Isaac's house?
576 Solomon Bipbisky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Well, not too close, but there was a post there;
I don't know exactly the place.
Q. Who put that post there?
A. That was in there the first place, when Dick-
inson was there himself.
Q. That's one of the old Dickinson posts'?
A. Yes, sir, and if you look close I believe it is
there yet.
Q. And then how did they run that fence?
A. Then they run westerly.
Q. Do you know how far back in that direction
that fence was built?
A. If I'm not mistaken 2,400 feet; it might be a
few more or less, but somewhere in that neighbor-
hood; we went up there and there was there; I
noticed where they were.
Q. Did you intend, or desire to get a tract of land
narrower at one end than at the other?
Objected to as immateriaL
A. No, sir, the top and the bottom is the same.
Q. That is, the east line is the same as the west
as near as you could make it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't fence in or intend to fence in any
such a tract of the shape the surveyor has made your
tract at this time, did you?
Objected to as leading.
A. No, of course not.
Q. Do you know why the surveyor has surveyed
you out a piece of land of such a shape as that?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
6i. W. Hinchman et al. 577
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
terial, and calling for a conclusion of law by the wit-
ness.
Q. I mean in such a shape as U. S. Survey No. 573
as the same appears on this Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1?
Same objection.
A. I presume; I don't know; but through reading
it it has to be taken up that way; you can't go
through here because that has been established al-
read}".
Q. Did the surveyor tell you thaf?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir, he told me that too.
Q. Whether it is true or not you don't know?
Objected to as leading and immaterial.
A. The surveyor says it — I don't know.
Q. Now, when was it you had that fence built,
Mr. Ripinskil
A. That was in the commencement of December,
light after I made the deed.
Q. Pretty soon after you got the deed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of a fence did you intend to build
there?
Objected to as immaterial.
Q. What kind of a fence did you build there?
A. There was some fence built there, wire fence.
Q. Posts, poles, and so on?
A. Yes, sir, and barbed wire; two wires.
Q. Running clear around your tract?
A. Clear around.
578 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomou Eipinski.)
Q. Do you know what became of that fence 1
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
Q. Question withdraAvn. At the time you had
this fence built, was there anyone on this tract of
land, any residents? A. Not a soul.
Q. Any tents or buildings on this tract of land"?
A. Nothing.
Q. There wasn^t anybody even living down in the
two houses on the beach, the old store, at that time ?
Objected to as leading.
A. That was used as a storeroom by Dalton.
Q. Now, when did you first learn about Harry
Fay having a tent on any part of this land?
Objected to as iucom]3etent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. After I fenced up all around and fixed up that
place, I went below to buy a stock of goods for the
storehouse —
Q. What storehouse?
A. The Haines storehouse.
Q. Did you contemplate moving over there at the
trme?
A. Yes, sir; I instructed my brother to take over
the stock of goods and fix up and when I came from
below I learned there was a tent on m}^ ground, and
I went up there to see it myself; there was a tent,
so when I went home I sent my brother with a notice
to Harry Fay — they told me it was Harry Fay's
place — that I claimed that place, and gave him
notice to get off of the place and my brother came
G. W. Hinchman et al. 579
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
back and said Fay told him lie better use that for
toilet paper.
Q. That was Harry Fay, one of the plaintiffs in
this case? A. Yes, that's the same Harry Fay.
Q. Well, now —
Plaintiffs move to strike the answer of the wit-
ness as to the notice, as hearsay.
Q. Now, from whom did you get the wire to
fence this piece of land, did you say*?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. From the Rev. W. W. Warne.
Q. Who was he?
A. He was the missionery there at the Mission.
Q. One of the plaintiffs in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. One of the lot-jumpers?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and there is no evidence in the case to show
there was any lot- jumping done by any of the plain-
tiffs.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Warne, or did Mr. Warne
know what you wanted to do with that wire?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. Yes, I think he did.
Move to strike the answer as merel}^ an expres-
sion of the witness' thoughts.
Q. State the fact — you say you think he did?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. Yes, sir, because he objected — he says, "If
you deposit fifty dollars I will give you the wire,"
580 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
and I had done lots of favors to him before, and he
says so I should have it — he didn't like to give me
the wire, and I had the money with me and so of
course I couldn't say no and I had people right
handy to take the wire.
Q. Did he know you were going to fence that
tract? A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did you tell him j^ou were going to fence the
toct?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell him you had made that deal with
Mrs. Dickinson?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
•terial.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's W. W. Warne, one of the plaintiffs
in this case?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, on December 2d, 1897, when this deed
t\'as made by Mrs. Dickinson and signed by her, how
long — how^ did it come that Grant Baldwin was
called in as a witness?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. In the first place, where was Grant Baldwin,
ivhere did he live at that time?
A. He lived a neighbor, in Kohler & James'
house, about 100 feet from my place.
Q. Did he keep a store for Kohler & James at
that time ? A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman ct al. 581
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Was Harry Fay at Cliilkat at that time'?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, there is nothing in the evidence to show
whether he knows.
A. No, sir.
Q. You were the postmaster at Chilkat at the
time, were you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had you at that time ever received any mail
there for Harry Fay?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you ever seen Harry Fay u]3 to that
time?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember when Harry Fay came and
replaced Grant Baldwin in that store — I don't mean
the exact date ; do you remember the occasion of his
coming and taking charge and Grant Baldwin leav-
ing?
A. I remember when I came back from below
Fay was up there commencing to fixed up and take
charge.
Q. Was he there when you went below?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember now about when it was
you went below?
A. Yes, I went below it must have been about
the 15th, I guess.
Q. And he wasn't there then? A. No, sir.
582 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. This change between Fay and Grant Baldwin
hadn't taken place when you went below*?
A. After I came back it was changed; yes, sir.
Q. Let me get that clear now; up to the time 3^ou
went below, Grant Baldwin was in charge of Kohler
& James' store? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was between the 15th and 18th of
December, 1897?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you came back who was in charge
of the store? A. I believe Fay was.
Q. Grant Baldwin then wasn't there?
Objected to as leading.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Had you ever seen Harry Fay in or around
or about Chilkat up until 3^ou came back from below?
A. No, sir.
Q. Until after the 15th of December?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. No.
Q. You were a merchant at Haines then?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And postmaster at Chilkat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Chilkat was a very small village at that time,
wasn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many white people lived there at Chil-
kat at the time?
A. Very few white — I don't remember now how
many — very few.
G. W. Hinchman et at. 583
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, in December of 1897 how
many white people lived over there at Portage
Cove, that is to say, Haines, in December, 1897.
A. Well, perhaps a dozen of people, perhaps.
Q. Well, who were they, if 3^011 can remember?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, Spooner was there —
Q. Spooner was there then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, who was he?
A. He was one of the Perry-Humbert Company,
but I don't believe — he stopped with Warne, if I'm
not mistaken.
Q. W.W. Warne? A. He did.
Q, Now, when did Sj^ooner build the hotel on
Dalton's acre? A. That's later on.
Q. But he was there in December, 1897?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he stopped with Mr. Warne?
A. Yes, I'm sure he was there, because I went
over to see Colonel Alburger and he was there.
Q. When was it that the rush of people came
to Haines going in to the Porcupine ?
A. It was in the fall of 1898.
Q. What did that rush of people do to your
fence?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incom-
petent.
A. They broke the fence down.
Q. What did they do to the land you had bought
and fenced in? A. They jumped it.
Q. What do you mean by "jumped it?"
584 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Put tents on, buildings, and foundations.
Q. Who were some of the people that came there
and 23iit tents and foundations on your land?
A. Well, there was Campbell, Cronen —
Q. E. P. Cronen? A. Yes; and Lane—
Q. Thatis, M.W.Lane? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tim Vogel?
Objected to as leading.
A. Tim Vogel, yes.
Q. Warne — did he jump any of your lots?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Adolph Hogesand?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Shorty Bigelow?
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was a kind of ring-leader, wasn't he, of
that crowd? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is in the penitentiar}' now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. "Long Shorty" they called him. Did you
see Tim Creeden there, was he one of that lot?
A. No, I don't think I seen him.
Q. You don't know whether he was there or not?
A. No, sir.
Q. And Frubeschenck?
Same objection.
G. W. Hincliman et ah 585
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I might not know his name — there was lots
of fellows there I didn't know their names.
Q. That was in the fall of 1898, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how many people do you suppose came
to Haines in that Porcupine excitement?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. Must have been at least a hundred or hun-
dred and fifty — quite a lot of them passed there.
Q. Did you ever tell Lane that you owned that
land? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before he built any houses?
A, Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever tell Cronen that you owned that
land before he built any house ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever tell Tim Vogel that you owned
that land before he built a house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell "Long Shorty" Bigelow?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mrs. Campbell, and Campbell, her husband?
A. Yes, sir. Miss Manning, when she built I was
there — her name was Manning.
Q. State whether or not you made it generally
known there that you did owm that land?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial; the law^ provides how it should be made
known, and doesn't provide for notice in any such
manner.
A. Yes.
Q. Did they pay any attention to your protests ?
586 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
A. They threatened my life and going to do me
up, and shoot me, and kill me. They drove my
brother off with a shotgun — ^Gabe.
Q. Well, now, that was in the fall of 1898?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State how generall}^ you asserted your claim
there — that is to say, state whether or not you told
every person you saw building a house there, that
that was your land? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any time you would see a person building a
house or foundation, would you go and tell them
that was your land?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ripinski, in June of 190'3, did you file any
Homestead location on this land? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I hand you a paper which I ask the
stenographer to mark — or which has been marked
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1, Cause No. 547-A, and
ask you if that is the homestead location you filed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do with that location — have it
recorded? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether or not you posted any notice
of that location? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State how many of those notices you posted ?
A. Four.
Q. State where you posted them?
Objected to as immaterial; there is no provision of
law for posting notices of homestead, and the post-
ing of notices is no notice to anyone.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 587
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Four of them, on the four corners.
Q. Of what? A. Of my land.
Q. Did you have a surveyor to go and lay out the
courses? A. Yes, sir.
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial and not the best evidence.
Q. What was the surveyor's name?
A. Ruud.
Q. Elias Euud? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do with one of the notices itself,
with one of the notices — one of them, in the way of
having it recorded?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and inama-
terial, and not the best evidence.
A. Recorded.
Q. Whereabouts ?
Same objection.
A. Skagway.
Q. Now, is Defendant's Identification No. 1 —
state whether or not that is the notice you had re-
corded? A. Yes, sir.
Defendant now offers this notice in evidence.
Objected to on the ground that the notice itself
does not comply with the homestead laws in describ-
ing the premises sought to be homesteaded.
2. For the reason that the property described in
the notice, and the whole thereof, was occupied by
the plaintiffs in this action and their grantors as a
townsite at the date of the location or the date of
filing and recording of this Homestead location
588 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
notice, and also at the date of the execution of the
notice.
3. For the further reason that the said notice
does not describe a parcel of land that could be home-
steaded under the Homestead Act of 1903 and shows
on its face that it isn 't made in good faith for a home-
stead, but rather that it was made for the purpose
of including practically the entire town of Haines.
(Marked in evidence.)
Q. Now, on this paper. Defendant's Exhibit No.
1, appears the following — no; on that notice there
doesn't appear to be any dat-e of settlement. State
^viielher or not an amended notice of location was
filed and recorded, and posted ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and imma-
terial, and not the best evidence.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now hand you a paper that has been marked
Defendant's Identification No. 3, Cause No. 547- A,
L. R. Gillette, Referee, and ask you if that is the
amended location notice that was posted and filed for
record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whereabouts was that filed?
Objected to for the reason that the record is the
best evidence.
A. In Skagway.
Q. Where was it posted?
A. At the four corners.
Objected to the question and move to strike the an-
swer for the reason that the posting of the notice on
G. W. Hincliman et al. 589
(Testimoii}' of Solomon Ripinski.)
the ground isn't evidence of the appropriation of
land.
Q. At the four corners, where the other notices
were posted %
Same objection.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As I understand you, then, the other notices
were posted around at the four corners by Mr. Ruud'?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Ripinski, have you been in possession of
that tract of land as the owner ever since you bought
it?
Objected to as calling for the conclusion of the
witness as to the matter of law at issue ; the witness
may testify where he has been and what he has done,
and the Court will construe as to whether or not that
amounts to possession.
Q. ^[r. Ripinski, what have you done with that
land you bought from Mrs. Dickinson since you
bought it ?
A. I put a fence around, and fixed it up.
Q. Around the whole tract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The w^hole fifteen acres?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else?
A. I fixed up the house, and cleared the beach,
so boats can land there.
Q. Have you cultivated any part of that tract?
590 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I've got a nice garden there, berries, cherry
trees.
Q. Well, have you lived on that piece of land ever
since .you bought it ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why, Mr. Ripinski, is it that you have never
done anything in the way of cultivating or clearing
any other portion of that tract except a little part
around the house on which you live?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. I hadn't the opportunity.
Q. What do you mean by that — hadn 't the oppor-
tunit}^ ?
A. Well, the jimipers got ahead of me.
Q. Got to it before you could do anything?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they have had it ever since, have they?
A. Yes.
Q. Some time ago did a man by the name of Ben
Barnett transfer any land to you, or give you a deed
to any land ? A. Yes.
Q. What land was that?
Objected to as not the best evidence.
A. That piece of land from Long Shorty.
Q. The piece that Long Shorty jumped, was it?
A. Yes, Bigelow.
Move to strike the answer and the question on the
ground that there is no evidence that the man Long
Shorty or Bigelow ever jumped any land.
Q. Now^, I hand the stenographer a piece of paper
which I ask him to mark for identification Defend-
G. W. Hincluiian et al. 591
(Testimon.y of Solomon Ripinski.)
ant's No. 11 (marked), and I hand you now this
paper, Defendant's Exhibit No. 11 for identification,
and ask you if that is the deed that Barnet gave you
for that lot?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Ben Barnett?
A. He is a man that lives in Haines.
Defendant now offers this deed in evidence. Ob-
jected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial; merely self-serving with reference to this
Ripinski tract and cannot be introduced to prove
any interest of Ripinski in the tract of land desig-
nated the Ripinski tract.
(Admitted.)
Q. I now call your attention to the words in
that deed "the following described property: 1 two-
story hotel building 25x36, and half of Lot 4 in Block
1 fronting on Main Street which is situated on Sol.
Ripinski homestead claim." I'll ask you if you
would have accepted that deed if it hadn't recog-
nized your right of homestead there ?
Objected to as. incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. No, sir.
Q. I hand you now a paper which I ask the sten-
ographer to mark Defendant's Exhibit No. 12 for
identification (so marked). Do you know whose
signature it is attached to that deed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose? A. Bigelow's.
Q. This same man — "Long Shorty"?
592 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that deed — from Bigelow to whom?
Objected to a& not the best evidence.
A. Ben Barnett.
Q. That describes the land in the same way,
doesn't it — as situated on your homestead claim?
A. Yes, sir.
Move to strike the answer of the witness for the
reason the deed itself will show where the property
sought to be conveyed by the instrument is situated.
Defendant now offers in evidence this deed Iden-
tification No. 12 and also Defendant's Identification
No. 3.
Plaintiffs object to the two deeds, exhibits No.
11 and 12 for identification, for the reason that they
are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and the
reference in the deeds to the Ripinski Homestead
have no binding force or effect upon these plaintiffs.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— I'm offering them to coun-
teract the inference you are trying to introduce here
that Sol. Ripinski had been buying property on his
own alleged Homestead Tract as you claim.
Plaintiffs further object to the introduction of
Exhibit No. 3 for identification for the reason that
the same is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,
and shows on its face that it doesn 't describe a tract
of land that could be patented or held as a home-
stead.
2. For the further reason that it embraces nearly
the entire of the town of Haines, which is not, and
G. W. Hinchman et al. 593
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
was not at the date of the execution of the notice of
homestead, open to entry.
3. Further, that paid deed shows upon its face to
have been made in bad faith and for the purpose of
acquiring title to land and improvements in the town
of Haines.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, I want to ask you the gen-
eral question : Whenever it has been brought to your
knowledge, eithei' by personal observation or by
someone else telling you, that somebody — that any
particular person was building a structure on this
sixteen acres — fifteen acres that you claim, what
have you done in the way of advising them of your
rights to that land?
A. I generally notified them it was my land.
Q. Some of them 3^ou even sent registered let-
ters to didn't you, at one time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who was the postmaster at Haines dur-
ing this time? A. Judge Stout.
Q. W. B. Stout? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you got registry receipts for a good many
of those letters, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You sent them, and signed my name as your
attorney did you not?
Objected to as leading.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any authority for doing that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Whose authority ? A. Yours.
Q. Did .you send — do you remember whether you
sent such a notice to H. J. Cougar?
594 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you send a registered letter to M. E.
Handy? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to Fred Handy ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you notify tliem in that letter that was
your property? A. Yes, sir.
Q, Did you send one to Mr. McCauley?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to Mr. Keeder? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Sent him a notice too, did you ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the receipt you got from the postof&ce
for that registered letter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To Mrs. Johnson — you sent her one?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one to D. Jerome?
A. That ought to be Craig, Mr. Jennings, he's
got the location there ; he goes by the name of Craig.
Q. To Mr. John Paddock, did 3"ou send him a
copy? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One to W. B. Stout, the postmaster himself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What lot was he building a house on or im-
proving? A. The one next to Hand.y.
Q. And you sent him a registered letter and got
a receipt for it, did you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. One to Joe Chisel ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Eipinski, I hand you a paper
marked — well, never mind then, I won't offer that
now. Now, is there anything else you desire to state
G. W. Hindi man et al. 595
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
that I haven't asked you with reference to the mat-
ter in dispute ?
A. Can I make some statement niyself ?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't know if I stated or not, -when I first
came there Dickinson showed me this tract of land,
and he stated he took that up for the Northwest
Trading Company —
Plaintiffs object to the statement of the witness
for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial and from all he has said thus far in his
voluntary statement it appears that it is pure hear-
say.
— he said he was going to clear it and make this
place w^here he is now^ —
Plaintiffs move to strike the further part of the
answer as hearsay.
— he said it was his now.
Q. Said they had abandoned it and it was his?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, he took it up in the first place for the
Northwest Trading Compam^ — A. Yes, sir.
Q. — how long before that?
A. It was in 1878 he took it up for the company,
and now it was his and he was going to have it for
himself.
Q. Did he say how long it had been his %
Objected to as calling for hearsa}^ testimony, in-
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. He did say — let's see. Since 1884 when he
bought out the company.
596 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Did he say what part of 1884 he bought out
the Northwest Trading Company — did he say^
Objected to as calling for hearsay testimony, in-
competent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A. At the commencement of the year.
Cross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS. — Now, Sol., what is your name?
A. Sol. Ripinski.
Q. You're a brother of Mr. Ripin, aren't, you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You and he don't bear the same name, do you?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Now, Mr. Ripinski, just
answer Mr. Lyons' questions respectfully and take
your time about it; you don't need to get hot about
it at all.
By Mr. LYONS.— He can get hot about it if he
wants to. You don't bear the same name, do you?
A. No, sir.
Q. He had his name changed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Because — you heard what he said — because
he wanted to be Americanized? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You're satisfied with your original name then,
are you ?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, insinuating, insulting — a man has the right
to the name his father gave him.
Q. I say, you're satisfied with your name — Ripin-
ski ?
A. To tell the truth, if I had the opportunity I
G. W. Hincliman et al. 597
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
would change it ; but I always had some commission
or something and couldn't change it.
Q. So you want to have it changed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have lived in Haines quite a long while,
haven't you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe you're sometimes called "Colonel,"
are you not, Mr. Ripinski? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you come to be called Colonel — just
dubbed that by people in Haines, or were you colo-
nel of some regiment? A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Where — in Poland?
A. No, sir, in the United States, sir.
Q. Where?
A. In the National Guards of Oregon.
Q. You were colonel of a regiment there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of the State militia?
A. Yes, sir; that's right.
Q. In Portland?
A. Well, some of the troops were supposed to
be in Portland, in Albany and Skagway.
Q. Albany and Skagway?
A. No, I mean Albany and Warren.
Q. I believe you said you were over forty-five
years old when Mr. Jennings asked you?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first move to Haines ?
A. In 1886 I came to Haines.
Q. When did 3^ou first see Harry Fay?
A. In February, 1898.
598 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. Where was Harry Fa^^ then?
A. In the store of Kohler & James at Chilkat.
Q. You saw him, or at least his tent, at Haines
before that date, didn't you? A. No, sir.
Q. Don't you know as a matter of fact that Mr.
Fay went to Haines on December 14th, 1904 —
A. I don't know; I didn't see him.
Q. I mean of 1897?
A. I didn't see him.
Q. You heard Mr. Fay testify in this case, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You heard him testif}^ he w^ent there on the
14th day of December, 1897, and located a lot — didn 't
you hear him testify that?
A. Yes, he testified that — I didn't see him.
Q. Then you don't know^ whether he was there
then or not ? A. No.
Q. He might have been there, and still you not
know it? A. Perhaps not.
Q. You said on direct examination that you were
familiar with the tract of land included within the
exterior boundaries of your alleged homestead —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When ? A. When I seen it.
Q. When did you see it first?
A. When I bought it I w^ent over there.
Q. When you bought it you went over there —
and you never knew where the corners were prior
to that time ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I asked you when you first saw it, and you
said when you first bought it?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 599
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I saw the corners when I first went there in
1886, when I came first there.
Q. Who showed the corners to 3^ou?
A. Mr. Dickinson, he was there.
Q. Why did he take yon aronnd the corners of
that tract — what occasion did he have to show you
the corners?
A. He took me to show me the piece of ground
that he was going to clear.
Q. In 1886? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He showed the piece of ground then that he
w^as going to clear, in 1886 ?
A. That is the time he pointed it out.
Q. And that piece of ground as marked by those
stakes included a good deal more than the tract in
controversy didn't it? A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know where those stakes were ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The}^ included more than the tract of ground
now in controversy between you and the plaintiffs
in this action, did they not? A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know much about it when you come
right down to the point do you ? And he told you in
1886, showed you the boundaries of that tract of land
and told you that he contemplated clearing it ; do you
know the condition the tract of land w^as in at that
time, as a matter of fact, it would have taken a life-
time to clear it ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and call-
ing for a conclusion or guess of the witness.
A. I don't know how long it would take.
600 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. You know as a matter of fact, sir, he never
took you over either, to the westerly corner of that
tract d'on't you? A. No, sir — he did.
Q. He took you over there ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's as true as anything else you have
testified to in this case? A. He took me there.
Q. The only object he had was to show you this
tract which he contemplated clearing — is that it?
Objected to for the reason that it is impossible
that the witness know what his object was.
A. I was there — you wasn't there.
Q. Answer my question, sir?
A. I say I did see it.
Q. You say that Dickinson took you over to this
corner, and the only purpose he had in taking you
there was to show you a tract of land he contem-
I)lated clearing some time in the future.
Objected to as immaterial, and not a proper state-
ment of the witness' testimony, the witness not hav-
ing testified he knew what Dickinson's purpose was.
A. He showed me that piece of land.
Q. Did he say why he showed you those corners ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Well, there was no other white man there, and
he showed me what he had — says he was something
to me.
Q. Very well. Now, where did he start from
when he showed you that big farm ?
A. He started right here, there was a little Indian
trail —
G. W. Hinchman et al. ()01
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. He went out Main Stret?
A. Wasn't any Main Street then.
Q. Well, along the Indian trail now occupied by
Main Street ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How far did he go %
A. Well, quite a distance, up to Sixth Avenue
somewhere — there was no Sixth Avenue then.
Q. Up to this place? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he show you a corner post there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How was it marked %
A. Well, it w^as a square post; I didn't see any
marks. I wasn't particular to look at the marks,
there was some post there all right.
Q. How high was that post?
A. About four feet.
Q. Where did he take 3^ou from there ?
A. Around over here somewhere.
Q. (By Mr. JENNINGS.) Designate the place
b}" some mark?
By Mr. LYONS.— Over here, Sixth Avenue
northerly, was it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then where?
A. Over some place to Dalton street there.
Q. Over to Dalton Street?
A. That wasn't that w^ay then, of course.
Q. Where the northwest corner of Block No. 5
is now located? A. I suppose so.
Q. Did 3^ou find a corner post there ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A post newly put in, was it?
602 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. No, sir, an old one.
Q. That looked like an old one there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Might have been there for ten or fifteen
years ? A. Perhaps.
Q. And where did he take you from there?
A. Well, there was all trees here; we went kind
of zigzag through there.
Q. Through the timber? A. Yes, sir.
Q. It w^as all covered with timber in those days?
A. That's right.
Q. The timber was dense too — located very
thickly on the ground, wasn 't it ?
A. Not very thickly.
Q. Large timber was it?
A. Yes, sir, large timbers.
Q. What time of the year did he take you around
there ?
A. I presume it must have been in the spring or
summer time ; there was no snow on the ground.
Q. And you say these posts looked to be about
ten or twelve years old ? A. Old posts ; yes.
Q. And he told you he staked out that land for
the purpose of clearing it ?
A. He staked it for the Northwest Trading Com-
pany in 1878.
Q. Did that company ever appropriate that land?
Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the wit-
ness.
A. Well, they used the front part of it.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 603
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Yes, the front part — about the same size as
you have appropriated on here — marked Ripinski
Homestead ?
A. Yes, something like that.
Q. What did the.y have down there?
A. AVell, they had a garden.
Q. What else? A. Warehouse.
Q. What else? A. Storehouse.
Q. Anything else? A. Woodyard.
Q. Am^thing else?
A. I don't know of anything else.
Q. So that's the way you first became familiar
with the holdings of George Dickinson, was it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were a great lover of mountain climbing
at that time, were you, Mr. Ripinski?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and an
attempt to confuse and embarrass the witness.
Q. You loved mountain climbing about that time,
didn't you?
A. Yes, certainly — I like it yet.
Q. You were a great hunter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Quite a man to travel through the mountains
on these little pleasure excursions ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have great difficult}^ in finding men to
keep up with you, don't you?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and an
attempt to confuse and embarrass the witness.
Q. Well, how about it?
604 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Yes, I like to climb mountains; I'm a little
clumsy now; used to when I was slim.
Q. As a matter of fact, 3^ou spend most of your
time now^ in your little store now^ selling second-hand
goods, more than than in surveying, don't you?
A. No, sir, I never sold second-hand goods.
Q. You're a merchant at Haines?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You have follow^ed that calling ever since you
came to Alaska, for yourself or somebody else,
haven't you?
A. I worked for somebod.y else too, yes.
O. Now, you say you bought this tract of land
from Mrs. Dickinson; what did you want that tract
for then, Sol.?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. What I wanted it for?
Q. Yes.
A. Why, people like to have land, to have prop-
erty.
Q. What did you want it for in that shape, that
size, the way it is defined on this exhibit?
A. I suppose that's the land he took up.
Q. You w^ere running a little store dowm on the
beach, weren't you — you didn't have any need of this
virgin forest back here for the purpose of enabling
you to maintain a small store ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
Q. You didn't need all that as a portion of your
trading site?
A. Well, it would come pretty handy to have.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 605
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. What did you want it for, I asked, in connec-
tion with your business there I
A. A¥ell, I might want to have a milk ranch there.
Q. You hadn't bought am^ cows of Mrs. Dickin-
son, had j^ou? A. Not yet.
Q. Not even to this day'? A. No.
Q. You never started a milk ranch there — did it
dawn on you at the time 3'ou made this purchase that
maybe you would go into the dairy business 1
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you ever in the dairy business before ?
A. No.
Q. You don't know an}i:hing about the dairy
business now^ do j^ou? A. No.
Q. And the only purpose you had in buying that
land was, that you thought you might at some time
in the indefinite future need it for a milk ranch ?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant, and a mis-
quotation of the witness' testimon}^ unfair to the
witness, and an attempt to embarrass and confuse
him.
Q. Is that right? A. Yes, that's right.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. You didn't need it in your — in maintaining
your little business you had down on the beach at
that time, did you?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant and for
the further reason that a person has a right to bu}^
property for any purpose he wants to.
Q. I say — you didn't need all of this disputed
tract of land for the purpose of enabling 3'ou to
606 Solomon Ripmsky vs.
(Testimonv of Solomon Ripinski.)
maintain the business 3- on had embarked in and were
controlling and operating on tliis small tract marked
''Ripinski Homestead" on this exhibit, did you?
A. Oh, I need it, certainly; I might have a gar-
den, a portion of it; fifteen acres isn't much for a
person to have.
Q. I thought 3^ou said awhile ago you bought it
thinking you might need it for a milk ranch ?
A. I haven't bought the cows yet.
Q. Couldn't you find any*?
A. Where shall I put them — feed them on top
of the rocks? People have got to have land for
cows.
Q. Did you expect to feed them on this land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, did Mrs. Dickinson ever
describe this land to you herself?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. When?
A. The time when I first came there.
Q. She took 3-ou out to those corner stakes too ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You and she went out to the corner stakes, did
you? A. I went out there.
Q. I asked you if she took you out and showed
you the corner stakes?
A. Yes, she took me out, too.
Q. When? A. When I bought it.
Q. You weren't sure, then, that you remembered
the stakes from the description George Dickinson
gave you? A. Yes.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 607
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. She took j^ou out alone, did she?
A. No, Billy went along. '
Q. What time of the year was that?
A. I suppose that's also in the fall, perhaps.
Q. I'm asking for your testimon}^ not your sup-
position.
A. Before I was contemplating buying it.
Q. Mrs. Dickinson took 3'ou and showed .you the
corner stakes before you bought it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew all the time that Mrs. Dickin-
son had never done a solitary thing with that prop-
erty, and George Dickinson had never done anything
with it?
A. They cleared part of it.
Q. They cleared the part now claimed and o\^Tied
by yourself and represented on this exhibit as the
Ripinski Homestead — that's the only part they
cleared ?
A. That's what Dickinson said —
Q. Never mind what he said — that's the only part
ever cleared by them ?
A. At that time, yes, sir; they expected —
Q. I'm not asking you what they expected to do,
but what they actually had done. A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is all the ground they had cleared on that
entire tract — is the small piece you now occupy to
the easterly of Block No. 1 — isn't that right?
A. Yes, sir, I presume so.
Q. You are familiar with the entire tract, weren't
you? A. Yes, sir.
608 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. You say you circumvented the entire tract on
two or three occasions ?
A. Yes, sir, lots of times.
Q. And 3^ou know that no other improvements or
clearing had been made on that portion of the land
by anyone at the time you purchased it, excepting
what had been done close to the beach and east of
Block No. 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the remaining portion of that tract was
then like any other portion of the forest '^
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now call your attention to Defendant's Ex-
hibit No. 7, which purports to be a deed from S.
Dickinson to .yourself. You took the acknowledg-
ment to that deed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You wTre a notary public at that time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had the power to acknowledge deeds
even those made to yourself, didn't you?
A. In fact, I believe I was the first notary public
in Alaska — Governor Shakley came up and he
wanted me to be a notary, and said I was the first
one — I put that seal on to see how it looks — that's
the first time —
Q. The purpose, then, of acknowledging this deed
before yourself was to see how it would look on pa-
per as a notary public — your name and seal?
A. Yes, sir, there was no other notai'y in Alaska.
Q. Mr. Ripinski, I don't want to deprive you of
the honor of being the first notary in Alaska, but I
want to know if you thought at that time you could
G. W. Hinchman et al. 609
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
acknowledge a deed in which you yourself were the
grantee — did you think you had the power to do
that at the time?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial, and for the further reason that the deed would
be a good deed without any acknowledginent at all
and there is no law even now on the statutes pro-
hibiting a man from acknowledging a deed before
himself.
A. I didn't think much about it.
Q. I now call your attention to the margin of
this deed on which is written '^ Adjoining the Mission
ground on the south and the Indian village on the
north." That was written in there after the body
of the deed was drawn? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after the signature to the same was at-
tached by S. Dickinson ? A. No, sir.
Q. You're sure of that, are .you?
A. Yes, sir, I'm sure.
Q. If that signature hadn't been put there be-
fore, sir, why didn't you put that clause below there
— you had plenty of room?
A. I thought after, I didn't know exactly if I
would bring it down here, so I put it over there.
Q. You're sure that was made before she signed
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And of course Mrs. Dickinson signed it be-
fore the witnesses? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you explain now to the Referee why you
didn't write those two lines which appear there on
the mai'gin, in the body of that instrument before
610 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Mrs. Dickinson signed, instead of writing them on
there on the margin and after she signed?
A. Well, I first wrote it here and she signed it,
T guess.
Q. Oh, I understand what you guess about it;
I'm asking you why you think it was necessary to
put that on the margin there?
A. Well, the thing, I couldn't put it in here, it
wouldn't reach.
Q. Well, her name isn't there? A. No.
Q. The witnesses' names weren't there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Well, wasn't there plenty of room then?
A. Well, you see that signed there, I thought it
wouldn't go.
Q. What did you put in "signed" there for, what
is the word for?
A. That means it is signed by somebody's name.
Q. You thought it was necessary to have the word
"signed" there as a proof that it had been signed
by someone? A. Xes, sir.
Q. And that if you wrote the word signed there,
it would be proof that she actually signed it?
A. Everybody generally puts signed there; that's
generally the way it is written.
Q. And in that deed is the best description of
this land you could give, notwithstanding the fact
.you knew where the exact corners were?
A. Yes.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 611
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. And you knew the approximate distance from
one corner to the other as you have stated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn't you say in preparing that deed,
starting on the beach at a certain corner in the vicin-
ity of Blind Isaac's house, thence running westerly
to Corner No. 2, thence southerly to Corner No. 3,
and thence running along the Mission line to the
beach, thence in a northerly direction again to Cor-
ner No. 1 the place of beginning?
A. If I had any idea the jumpers w^ould come
after it I would take it to an engineer.
Q. You're a school-teacher, aren't you — a man of
some education?
A. I have superintended schools.
Q. You have some education, haven't you?
A. Some.
Q. You know something about the description of
lands, don't you?
A. I don't know at that time perhaps.
Q. Well, when you bought the land, w^hat did
you do then? A. I fenced it up.
Q. You said you weren't expecting any jumpers
when you drew up that instrument? A. No.
Q. But you immediately thought it was an un-
commonly wise thing to fence it in after you pur-
chased it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you proceeded to fence it — when did you
begin?
A. Well, perhaps the next day after I bought it.
Q. And perhaps the next month?
612 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
A. No, the next day.
Q. On the third day of December'?
A. It might be the third.
Q. You heard your brother testify it was along
about the tenth of December, didn't you?
A. Perhaps he was fencing one side and I was
fencing the other side.
Q. Then he started on one side and you on the
other? A. Yes, sir.
Q. He testified that he and the natives and one
Adolph were working there altogether?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were working on the other side?
A. Yes, sir; I had also some natives on the other
side.
Q. What part of the building of that fence did
you engage in, Mr. Ripinski?
A. The southern part, the southwest part.
Q. What part of the work did you do?
A. Chopped down some trees, I suppose.
Q. What did you chop down trees for?
A. We put the fence on some of the trees, little
saplings, small trees.
Q. How much snow was there on the ground
when you were building that fence?
A. Well, there was some snow.
Q. How much I asked?
A. In the woods farther there wasn't hardly any;
on the outside there was considerable snow, on the
trail.
Q. The ground was frozen, was it not?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 613
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. In some places it was hard and some places
not.
Q. How did you dig the post-holes?
A. I'm telling you, we chopped some trees
down —
Q. How did you dig the post-holes to put the
posts in?
A. The trees was in the ground already; chopped
down small trees and put the wires on.
Q. You didn't need then to put in any posts —
put the wires on the trees'?
A. We made posts out of the trtes — chopped
them down.
Q. You chopped them down then?
A. Just topped them, and smoothed them round.
Q. And then you attached the wire to the trees?
A. Yes, sir, if we could find them.
Q. So you didn't have to dig any post-holes at
all?
A. Some places we did; otherwise if there was
an}" trees in the road.
Q. Did you dig many post-holes?
A. I don't remember how many; I didn't have
time to count them.
Q. Never mind — you were fortunate then in find-
ing trees about every place you needed a post?
A. Perhaps.
Q. You heard what your brother testified about
that? A. I don't know whether I heard it.
Q. How did you dig those post-holes?
A. Well, some of them were —
614 Solomon Uipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. How did you dig those post-holes?
A. With a pick and adze.
Q. You dug them with an adze?
A. Yes, shovel and pick.
Q. And i^ick — and shovel you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you succeed pretty well in digging those
holes with a shovel and adze when the ground was
frozen ?
A. Well, sometimes when snow is on the ground
it isn't frozen very far.
Q. Well, your brother testified it was frozen?
A. In some parts, yes.
Q. And you dug the holes with an adze?
A. With a pick.
Q. How deep did you set the holes in the ground?
A. I don't know how many feet.
Q. How many feet, do you think — how deep?
A. Two or three feet, I suppose.
Q. And you did that with a pick. Don't you
know you can't go two or three feet down with a
pick? A. Why not?
Q. When you have a post-hole the size usually
dug for posts, how^ can you go two or three feet into
the ground with a pick?
A. Yes, sir, I pick it and take it out with the
shovel and put rocks around.
Q. What did you put rocks around for?
A. To keep it solid.
Q. Now, how did you dig those post-holes, Mr.
Ripinski — how did you, candidly?
G. \V. Hinchman et al. 615
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. The best way I could.
Q. As a matter of fact, you don't remember any-
thing about how they were dug at all'?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. As a matter of fact you know you never built
a fence around that tract at all?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. You know very well, sir, you never did build
a fence around that tract of land'?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And you know nobod}^ else ever saw tliat
fence around there besides you and your brother"?
A. Good many didn't w^ant to see it.
Q. Now, who were the natives that helped you
in the building of that fence?
A. Quite a number of natives; yes.
Q. Name one of them?
A. We had some natives at the last lawsuit was
with us in the case, they helped build the fence.
Q. What are their names — name one of them?
A. One was Willy.
Q. You're about as well acquainted with the
natives in Haines as anybody in this country, aren't
you? A. Yes, sir, that's true.
Q. Yet you're not able to recall the name of a
single Indian that helped build this wonderful fence
around the tract in dispute?
A. Yes, sir, Willy, he was Bill Fox's brother in
law, he is dead now\
Q. Willy is dead, now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is Fox? A. He is here.
616 Solomon BipinsUy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. Nobody else that you can recall but Willy,
and he is dead — of the natives 1
A. John Jack.
Q. Where is John Jack? A. He is dead.
Q. Anybody else"?
A. We had lots of them, pretty near all of the
natives have died out, there was an epidemic.
Q. Anybody else that you can recall?
A. We had Adolph.
Q. Well, Mr. Ripinski, did the epidemic affect
your witnesses any w^orse than anybody else?
A. No; the witnesses, the natives died.
Q. All the natives that helped build that fence
are dead? A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know where they are, do you?
A. I do not.
Q. And you have none of them here?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you last see any portion of that
fence standing? A. In the fall of 1898.
Q. Haven't seen an}^ of it since — you saw that
fence along in front of this tract, did you, in 1898?
A. I seen the fence right here, in front here.
Q. In the fall of 1898?
A. The southwest part of it; yes.
Q. You saw that fence standing in the fall of
1898, the fence along Main Street there, for its full
length?
A. Yes; not all of it; they commenced breaking
it down and fixing it up and lots of trouble ; one day
G. W. Hinchman et al. 617
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
we will fix the fence and another da}^ it would be all
tore down.
Q. You said it was torn down considerably dur-
ing the rush to Porcupine, I believe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then the breaking down didn't begin until
the fall of '98, did it?
A. Yes, sir, fall of '98.
Q. So prior to the fall of 1898, your fence along
the front, along Main Street, was nearly all stand-
ing? A. Yes, sir.
Q. During the summer of 1898 it was nearly all
standing ?
A. That's the time we had the trouble; they tear
it down, and that fence down here and down here
stood quite a while.
Q. The witness describes the fence along Sixth
Avenue and down to Dalton Street. Now, I am call-
ing your attention to that fence along Main Street;
that, 3^ou say, was standing in the summer of 1898?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But as soon as the rush was made to the Por-
cupine, by people going to the Porcupine, it was torn
down and destroyed?
A. By jumpers; yes, sir.
Q. But in the summer of 1898 it was practically
all standing?
A. We tried, when they break it down anything,
to fix it up again.
Q. Answer the question — in the summer of 1898
618 Solomon Ripi]isky vs. "
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
the fence along Main Street was practically all
standing?
A. I don't know all — some of it w^as.
Q. Well, nearly all of it — in the summer of 1898?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. And it was a two-wire fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Posts set in the ground two or three feet with
stones piled around?
A. You mean all of the ground?
Q. No — I say they were set in the ground two or
three feet?
A. Well, some of them would be; the balance
small trees.
Q. Yes, whenever you could you used a tree, but
the posts you set in the ground two or three feet
deep?
A. Yes, perhaps a little deeper; I don't know.
Q. Why was there any necessity of building a
fence on the south side of your tract — why couldn't
you have joined onto the Mission fence?
A. Well, there ought to be a trail so people could
walk.
Q. You wanted to leave a trail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever ask the Mission people if they
would allow you to join on to their fence?
A. I did not.
Q. There was nobody that had any particular
right to a trail as long as you owned the ground?
A. Well, there was always a little trail there.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 619
(Testimony of Solomou Eipinski.)
Q. Well, you owned the ground?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had a perfect right to fence it up, didn't
you?
A. Well, people have to pass there; I used to
want to take a walk there myself.
Q. And to accommodate your desire to take a
walk occasionally, and the public, you left a small
alley-way between your own ground and the Mission
fence?
A. In fact, the natives of the Klukwan, the up-
per country, used to come down that little trail, and
that's really the reason Dickinson only had this strip
of ground; he said he wanted his customers coming
down here, he didn't have any trade from the other
line.
Q. And to accommodate yourself • when you
wanted to take a walk and also the Indians, you left
that alley-way? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you knew you had a right to fence all of
that, because you owned the land?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said you sent out a lot of notices of your
ownership to the occupants of the town of Haines —
when did you send them out?
A. Well, the date's on them.
Q. They haven't been offered in evidence; I don't
know what the dates were — it was in the summer
of 1903, wasn't it, after you located this place as a
homestead? A. Yes.
620 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. You didn't send them any written notice
prior to that time?
A. I didn't remember, I think.
Q. In fact, you started in at that time to make
a case for yourself by sending out registered letters,
didn't you?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. I send them notices before, but they said they
didn't receive them.
Q. Didn't you state just a moment ago, sir, that
the registered letters were the first written notice
you had sent — as a matter of fact you never sent
tiicm any notices before that, did you?
A. I did.
Q. Did you send notices through the mail before
that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To whom did you send written notices
through the mails before 1903?
A. One to Lane.
Q. He isn't here to-day? A. No, sir.
Q. Who else? A. To Campbell.
Q. He isn't here to-day? A. No, sir.
Q. Who else did you send written notice to?
A. Mrs. Campbell.
Q. She isn't here? A. No, sir.
Q. Lane isn't in the country now, is he?
A. No, sir.
Q. Campbell isn't in this country either?
A. No more was the present jumpers in this
country neither.
Q. Who else did you send a notice to?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 621
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you send one of those notices to Martini
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before tliis registered notice of 1903?
A. He never had no property there.
Q. He never had property there before tlie sum-
mer of 1903 "? That is, the time you sent the notices
enclosed in registered letters — that was the sununer
of 1903?
A. Yes, sir; there was one for Martin, I think —
Q. When was it sent to him?
A. When he was building his house.
Q. When was that?
A. The notice will say.
Q. He lived there long prior to 1903, didn't he?
A. He was in Porcupine, if I'm not mistaken.
Q. Do you say Martin wasn't in Haines, occupy-
ing that building or place of business before the
summer of 1903?
A. Perhaps he was in Mr. Vogel's place.
Q. Then he didn't occupy any premises of his
ow^n in Haines prior to 1903?
A. I don't believe.
Q. You didn't send him any notice before 1903,
did you? A. He had no propertj^ there.
Q. Did you send him any notice prior to 1903 to
keep off or not to build any more on that tract?
A. Perhaps he didn't have no land there.
Q. That's not an answer to the question: I asked
you if you sent Mr. Martin any notice to quit, or any
notice that you claimed that land, prior to 1903?
622 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I'm not going to send any person any notice
if he isn't on my land, am I?
Q. Did you or did you not send him such notice?
Answer, sir!
A. I don't think I did; when he commenced to
building I did.
Q. Did you send in a notice to Fay prior to 1903 ?
A. My brother went to him with a notice.
Q. You sent him a notice through the mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you a copy of that notice?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, that was prior to 1903?
A. Yes, sir; that is when he commenced his build-
ing.
Q. Let's see it? A. Shall I read it?
Q. Go ahead.
A. "Mr. H. Fay, Haines, Alaska. October 1st,
1904. This is to notify you that Sol. Ripinski claims
the land that you are building on at Haines Mission.
You are therefore warned not to proceed any fur-
ther with building on or improving said land. R.
W. Jennings, attorney for Sol. Ripinski."
Q. You didn't send him any notice before that?
A. Well, he was building at the time.
Q. Answer the question — you didn't send any
notice to Mr. Fay stating that you claimed or owned
the premises he was occupying until October 1st,
1904 — notwithstanding the fact that you knew he
had been there since 1897?
A. I sent one notice by my brother.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 623
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Which brother?
A. Gabe — running a store in Haines.
Q. Did you send a notice to Mr. Morrison —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When?
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Defendant's Exhibits No.
5 and 6 haven't been introduced in evidence — I now
offer them. (Marked.)
Q. Well, now, when did you send a notice to Mr.
Morrison? A. Shall I read it?
Q. Let's see it — you didn't send him a notice
until July, 1903, did you?
A. Until he was building his residence.
Q. Notwithstanding the fact you knew he had
been on the premises for three or four years prior
to that time, you never sent him any notice that you
were claiming that ground — did you?
A. I never knew he claimed the ground.
Q. Did you notify Mr. Adams that you claimed
the premises he was on?
Objected to as not cross-examination.
A. I think his house is off the tract.
Q. You knew, sir, that he had a house on that
tract — I call your attention now to —
A. I think it is outside of that.
Q. —to Parcel No. 14 in Block No. 1?
A. This is out of that there.
Q. A portion of his lot is on the disputed tract,
is it not — you knew he claimed that whole lot?
A. But the improvements is outside.
Q. Hasn't he a fence around that lot, sir?
624 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. I don't know if he lias or not.
Q. Did you ever notify Mr. Creeden — protest
against his building on this lot ?
A. Well, I personally told him he was on my
ground, m,y brother and myself.
Q. When? A. When he was building.
Q. You and your brother notified Mr. Creeden?
A. Yes, and Mr. Brie and Mrs. Brie.
Q. You testify that you did yourself; you noti-
fied them when they were building that the}^ were
on your ground? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Ripinski, you
knew these people were building and improving that
ground and never thought about notifying any of
them until 1903 on the advice of your counsel ?
A. I notified them before.
Q. You have no evidence of it except 3'our own
unsupported word?
A. Of course, they deny it.
Q. You think they will deny it?
A. The}" generally do, perhaps.
Q. Did yoLi serve any written notice on them and
keep a copy of it before 1903?
A. No, I don't thinlv so.
Q. Now, you say the reason you didn't improve
this property was, that the jumpers were there and
prevented you from doing so — is that right?
A. They got possession of the ground.
Q. And that's the reason you didn't clear the
ground — understand me, now — that's the reason why
you didn't go ahead and improve that tract?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 625
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Isn't it true that 3-011 haven't even cleared all
the ground that you are the undisputed owner of
down on the beach there?
A. I wanted that for myself.
Q. You haven't cleared it all?
A. I didn't want to clear it; I want to have a
little park down there.
Q. Oh, you wanted that for a park; you didn't
have any use for a park on the other portion of the
premises ?
A. That would be too big a park.
Q. That would be too large a park for 3'ou would
it — what did you expect to run in that park ?
A. Cool oft when it is warm — go in there and
cool off.
Q. There is where you go to cool off when you
get hot — oh, you have had two or three suits with
these occupants, haven't you, Sol.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they have beaten you both times, both
before the jury and the court, haven't they?
Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not
proper cross-examination.
Q. Isn't that true? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You brought an ejectment suit once in this
court against W. W. Warne, Harry Fay, M. W.
Lane, E. P. Cronen and others and the jury dis-
agreed with you and decided in favor of the defend-
ants?
626 Solomon Bipinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Objected to as immaterial and incompetent and
the verdict of the jnry is the best evidence.
Q. Evidently the jury didn't consider these men
jumpers, did they, Sol.?
Objected to for the same reason, and the further
reason that it is impossible for this witness to tes-
tify what the jury considered.
Q. The jury didn't consider the plaintiffs in that
case jumpers, did they?
Objected to on the grounds above given, and de-
fendant's counsel instructs him not to answer the
question.
Q. You lost that case, didn't you?
Objected to because the record is the best evidence,
if any such evidence is competent or material.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also had a case tried down at Juneau in
the Commissioner's Court, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you lost that case didn't you also?
Objected to as inrmaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it was thereafter appealed to the Dis-
trict Court and you also lost out there?
Objected to as incompetent and immaterial and
not the best evidence.
Q. You've had a hard time making people in this
countr}^ belie^'e these i)laintiffs are jumpers, haven't
you ?
Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant.
A. Yes.
G. W. Hincliman et al. 627
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. They don't agree with you, do they — people
don't agree with you when you call these men jump-
ers f
Objected to as irrelevant, immaterial, and indef-
inite— some people may agree with him and some
ma.y not.
A. Well, some say yes and some say no.
Q. Every time you have got into court so far, the
Court has said "no," hasn't it?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial and not
the best evidence.
A. In those da.ys I couldn't get no justice, sir.
Q. Now, you won't swear, will you, Mr. Ripin-
ski, that you fenced that ground down there before
Mr. Fay and others were on that gi^ound?
A. Yes, sir, I swear to that.
Q. You will swear jDositively now, that you had
that fenced, and the entire tract inclosed, before
Mr. Fay was on the ground? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You stated a while ago in response to a ques-
tion, that you couldn't swear whether Harry Fay
was on the ground on the 14th day of December or
not, but that you didn't see him there, and he may
have been there — wasn't that your language?
Objected to on the ground the question is put in
a shape to purposely confound the witness because
you don't state what you mean by that language.
Q. I agree, Mr. Jennings, that your objection is
not stated for the purpose of confounding the wit-
ness. Now, you heard Harry Fay's testimony that
628 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
he located a lot there on the IJith day of December,
1897? A. I did.
Q. You won't swear he didn't locate that lot on
(hat day will you, Mr. Ripinski?
A. He didn't locate it on the ground — perhaps
he did in his mind, maybe.
Q. Do you swear positively, sir, that Harry Fay
didn't locate a lot in Haines on the 14th day of De-
cember, 1897?
A. Perhaps he had the first lot of Dalton's.
Q. I 'm asking yOu about the lot he occupies now ?
A. Well, I didn't see it; if it would be there, I
would see it.
Q. And .you positively swear that he didn't have
a tent there and didn't have the corners of his lot
marked on the 14th day of December, 1897 — you
know his location notice is dated December 14th,
1897? A. No.
Q. Didn't you see his location notice offered in
evidence here in this case?
A. I didn't see it — where is it?
Q. You didn't make any examination of the rec-
ords to find out whether he did or not ?
A. Well, I have got nothing to do with the rec-
ords.
Q. You say, now, sir, that you had fenced that
tract, inclosed it in a fence, before Harr}^ Fay lo-
cated his lot in Haines — do you swear to that?
A. I didn't see it — I swear I didn't see it.
Q. But you won't swear that Harry Fay didn't
G. W. Hinchman et al. 629.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
have his lot marked on the ground at that time, and
before you had completed your fence, will you ?
A. Well, I didn't see it.
Q. I ask you, sir, if you will positively swear-
that Harry Fay didn't have the boundaries of his
lot marked and his location made before you com-
pleted^ A. I didn't see it; I can't tell.
Q. Then you don't know whether he did or not.
Now, did 3^ou send any notice to Mr. Bjornstad*?
A. No.
Q. You knew that he occupied and represented
some premises on that tract belonging to himself and
his mother, didn't .you?
A. He got some property from Campbell, and I
sent one to Miss Manning — Mrs. Campbell.
Q. You didn't send any notice to Bjornstad then ?
A. No, I sent them to people that had property
in the first place and built there.
Q. Did you send any notice to Mr. Weitzman ?
A. Weitzman knowed it was my land ; he acknowl-
edged that himself — I rented part to him.
Q. Yes, let's get down to that now. You rented
to him a tract there that you knew to be a part of
the Dalton acre, didn't you*?
A. Well, it was part of Dalton 's and part of
mine.
Q. And as soon as Mr. Weitzman made some ar-
rangement with Mr. Dalton you paid him back the
rental money?
A. I didn't paid hmi back; no.
630 Solomon Bipinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. You heard Mr. Weitzman's testimony, didn't
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That wasn't true then, that you paid him
back the rent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was false, w^as it?
A. If he paid it back to me, I didn't get any
money.
Q. No, no; I say you paid it back to him — he
testified you paid back to him what you collected
when he made the arrangements with Dalton?
A. Not much.
Q. You have never tried to collect any rent from
him since?
A. Not since Mrs. Dalton — I made a stipulation
with Mrs. Dalton about that.
Q. I say you have never tried to collect any rent
from Weitzman since, have you?
A. No, sir.
Q. He still occupies a portion of your jDremises,
don't he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. You never sought to collect any more rent?
A. No.
Q. You know now^ very well, Mr. Eipinski, that
you rented that place to Mr. AVeitzman under these
circumstances: Mr. Weitzman heard that Mr. Dal-
ton was laying claim to the tract, and 3^ou were also
laying claim to the tract, and rather than go to the
expense of a law^suit he went to you and asked you
if you would sell a tract and you said no, that you
would lease it to him — isn't that true?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 631
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Objected to on the ground there are a half dozen
questions in one, and then at the end is the gen-
eral question: Isn't that true? A. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And then Mrs. Dalton laid claim to the tract
and Mr. Weitzman settled with her and he came
back and told you he had made a settlement with
Mrs. Dalton and made some complaint about your
claiming rent from him for a tract you didn't own
and you waived all of your claim of rent — isn't that
true?
Objected to for the same reason.
Q. That's true also, isn't it?
A. At that day we didn't know which it was, if
it was mine or Mrs. Dalton 's because Mrs. Dalton
she took a broader piece, more than one acre.
Q. You allowed her to take more than an acre
then?
A. Well, she sold more than an acre. We made
a certain agreement, there was one paper Mrs. Dal-
ton and myself made out of that.
Q. And you think— seriously now, do you feel
serious in asking the Court to give you the property
that you claim in this suit as against these plain-
tiffs who have gone on there in good faitli and im-
proved it with their money and energy?
Objected to as argumentative, incompetent and ir-
relevant.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You think the Court ought to hold you are
the owner of that property do you?
632 Solomon Ripinski/ vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Objected to on the ground the question involves
the witness' opinion of the merits of his suit when
he has already filed an answer setting forth his
claim.
Q. Do you think the Court ought to give it to
you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That's the way you feel about it, is if?
A. And I will get it, too.
Q. Oh, you will ! You think you will — well, now,
you built a fence along the easterly side of Lot No.
1 here, Block 1, as indicated on Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 1 — between that block and your tract of land,
didn't you? A. Beg pardon; ask that again.
Q. You have built a fence along the southerly
line of Block No. 1, haven't you?
A. Right here, yes, sir; there is a fence there.
Q. You built that fence then, between your own
holdings and the holdings of the occupants of Block
No. 1? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you build that fence for?
A. Some of those people that lived there moved
that fence fifteen or twenty feet, the whole busi-
ness.
Q. What did you build that in there for, in the
first place?
A. Because they might come and take the whole
business.
Q. You built that fence as a matter of fact, to
mark the boundary, the westerl^y boundary of your
holdings and claim, didn't you?
A. No, sir, I claim the whole business.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 633
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. What did you build that fence for then — why
didn't you build it higher up here^
A. Higher — they throw down the fence if I
build it higher.
Q. Who — those lot owners'? A. Yes.
Q. No part of that fence is standing there to-day *?
A. I don't know — I expect not.
Q. When did you build this fence along the south-
erly or easterly side of Block No. 1%
A. I can't recollect just what time.
Q. Well, what time was it — before, or after you
built the other fence? A. After.
Q. How long afterwards?
A. Considerably after, I think.
Q. Well, about how long, Mr. Ripinski?
A. I can't tell just the time.
Q. You built that fence to keep the jumpers from
coming in and jumping that portion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You never used that portion, excepting to the
east of Block No. 1, did you?
A. Yes, sir; they moved that fence in about
twenty feet, the whole thing.
Q. You don't mean to say you now occupy any
part of Morrison's Hotel, do you?
A. The Morrison Hotel; no.
Q. That line that indicates the easterly bound-
ary of Block 1 is about the dividing line between
your Homestead and the lots in Block 1, isn't it?
A. That part you're alluding to is Dalton's acre.
634 Solomon Ripinshy vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. I say that line, the southerly line of Block 1
is the dividing line between your holdings and the
lots they are occupying? A. The jumpers?
Q. There are no jumpers in this case, sir — I mean
the people who live there; isn't that true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that line is about the line of the fence
which divides your holdings from the holdings of
the other occupants of Block No. 1?
A. That's right.
Redirect Examination.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— Mr. Ripinski, Mr. Lyons
has asked you whether or not the jury has passed
on the question as to whether you own this land,
one jury at Juneau, and one at Skagway: Do you
know whether any lot jumpers were on the jury
that tried 3^our case at Juneau? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any men who had jumped lots in Haines,
lots in this very city of Haines — in your suit ?
A. Yes, sir, that's right.
Q. Some of the very same lot ^-jumpers who
jumped your lots in Haines were on that jury in
Juneau? A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q. When was the case tried in Skagway, what
year was that tried in?
A. I don't remember now.
Q. AVell, who was Judge when that was tried?
G. W. Hinchman et al. 635
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
A. It must be Johnson, I think.
Q. And it was tried at the veiy time of the rush
up here into the Klondike, wasn't if?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And tried at the very time that Skagway was
wrought up over the Captain Moore suits, wasn't
it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And a great many people were on that jury
w^ho had jumped lots of Captain Moore's right here
in Skagway?
Objected to as leading, incompetent, and immate-
rial.
Q. Mr. Ripinski, has your case ever been sub-
mitted to a Judge of the law, without a jury?
A. No.
Q. Never have? A. No, sir.
Q. Has any special agent ever come out here
from Washington^ under special orders from Wash-
ington to investigate your claim to this land?
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and imma-
terial.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was it — who were they?
Objected to for the same reason.
A. He was Col. Grygla, special agent of the Land
Department and one was Judge Witten.
636 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Of the Land Department at Washington?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever seen a copy of Judge Wit-
ten's report?
Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and ir-
relevant.
Q. Have you got a copy of that report?
A. I don't know — I might have it.
Q. Mr. Ripinski, did you ever receive a letter
from Honorable W. A. Richards, Conmiissioner of
the General Land Office at Washington, dated Feb-
ruary 14th, 1905? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask the stenographer to mark thiS: letter
Defendant's Exhibit No. 13 for identification case
No. 547. (Marked.) I now hand you that letter
marked for identification No. 13 and ask you where
you got that letter ?
A. From the Department of the Interior, Gen-
eral Land Office, Washington, D. C.
Q. Where did you get it — who gave it to you —
did you get it out of the postoffice?
A. The postoffice; yes.
Q. It came addressed to you in an envelope?
A. Yes, sir.
G. W. Hinchman et al. 637
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
Q. And was handed to you by Mr. Stout, the
postmaster at Haines? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now, we will offer this letter in
evidence.
Objected to for the reason that it is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial, and expressh" states that
the Land Office at Washington, under the facts be-
fore it is not in a position to decide the case in con-
troversy.
By Mr. JENNINGS.— We offer it for the purpose
of showing what the General Land Office has to
say with reference to Judge Witten's report to that
office ; and I would like to remark that it is no more
incompetent for us to introduce that than for coun-
sel to ask about jurors and other people taking stock
in Eipinski 's statement that he is owner of that
land. Now, Mr. Eipinski, you have a certified copy
of Judge Witten's report, have, you?
A. That one I handed you.
Q. That's not a certified copy; merel.y said to
be a copy. You can't swear that is a copy of the
report, and so I won't introduce it. Now, Mr. Eip-
inski, the fence that the Mission people had built
on their land, state whether or not it extended the
w^hole length of that trail as far as the land you
claim?
A. Yes — no, there is only part of it.
Q. How much of that trail had been fenced by
the Mission people at the time 3^ou put your fence
on the remainder of the trail?
A. I should judge several hundred feet.
638 Solomon Ripinsky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. Had it been fenced at that time any further
than Tim Vogel's by the Mission people?
A. Yes, sir; about that far, I gue^s.
Q. Now, Mr. Lyons asked you about the Indians
that helped you to build that fence, and seemed to be
very much surprised and a little incredulous because
you couldn't name any living Indian — ^liow long has
it been since you built that fence, or helped to build it ?
A. Well, since 1897.
Q. Is it an uncommon thing: in Alaska for a whole
tribe of Indians to be wiped out by an epidemic of
small-pox or anything of that kind?
Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial.
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you stated that in building that fence
3^ou strung the wires on posts, dug some post-holes and
strung the wires on little tree that had been topped,
cut down ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether you dug more holes than
you used trees — which did you do the most ?
A. The most was the trees in the ground there.
Q. Whenever you found a tre^, you had no reason
to dig a post-hole there — you used trees where you
could ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Lyons, seems to have had his risibles
excited a good deal about that deed from Mrs. Dickin-
son to you — are you a lawyer, Mr. Ripinski ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you a conveyancer? A. No, sir.
Q. Are you an engineer ? A. No. sir.
Q. Was there any other notary public anywhere
G. W. Hincliman et al. 639
(Testimony of Solomon Eipinski.)
around in that neighborhood at the time you made
that deed ?
A. I was the first notary in Alaska — that's what
Governor Shakeley told me.
Q. In fact, the first one he had authority to ap-
point ? A. He told me that.
Q. But you don't know whether or not it was so?
A. Of course not.
Q. I '11 ask you if the words written in the margin
of that deed — I'll ask 3'ou if you wanted to write in
those words that are in the margin if you couldn't
have written them as well after Mrs. Dickinson signed
— as well before as after ?
Objected to as immaterial.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you wanted to do it — before or after — ^there
was plenty of room, wasn't there?
A. Yes, sir ; but that was written before.
Recross-examination.
By Mr. LYONS.— You promised Mr. Weitzman
you would give him a deed to his land he owned on
this disputed tract after you got title to yours, didn't
you?
A. He is the biggest liar, if he'll say that, in the
world,
Q. Why, of course — and you say the men who
have sat on your juries were all jumpers ?
Objected to on the ground that the witness never
stated they were all jumpers.
Q. Who were the jumpers on your jur.y? Name
one single one. A. On what jury?
640 Solomon Ri pin sky vs.
(Testimony of Solomon Ripinski.)
Q. The jury that sat in Skag\Yay and decided 3^our
case, in which you were plaintiff?
A. Any number of them.
Q. Name one — you can 't name one, can you ?
A. Let me think a little, it is a long- time ; I know
who they were.
Q. Name one of them ?
A. They had at that time trouble with Moore.
Q. I didn't ask you about that — I ask you, sir, to
name one juror who sat on that jury who was a
jumper? Well, if you can't do that, can you name
one juror who sat on your jury in Juneau who was a
jumper?
Objected to on the ground the witness never stated
any of the jurors at Juneau were jumpers.
A. Long Shorty was running around with some
powers of attorney to put some claims on that land,
the whole of the country.
Q. I asked you what juror sat on your case that
was tried at Juneau, who was a jumper?
A. Li Juneau ?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, in Juneau the people had trouble with
Goldstein —
Q. Now, Mr. Ripinski, don't evade the question:
You said they were jumpers on your jury there — what
juror who went on your case was a jumper?
A. There was a plat made. Lane had a plat and
there was one of the lots of one of the men went on
my jury.
;
1
: -
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11